Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Fuel Bills (Pensioners)

Mr. James Wray: What steps are being taken to assist Scottish pensioners with their winter fuel bills; and if a helpline has been set up for them. [104927]

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): This winter about £70 million has been paid in winter fuel payments to more than 900,000 Scottish pensioners. As in previous years, a national helpline has been set up to deal with inquiries about the winter fuel payments scheme.

Mr. Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree that Scottish pensioners will be grateful not only for the £100 payment, but for the reduction in VAT—which was imposed by the previous Tory Government—from 17.5 to 5 per cent? Does he also agree that fuel payments are not only necessary, but that 169,000 pensioners in Scotland are entitled to income support? I know that his Department has set up a hotline, but will he speak to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and tell him to set up a hotline to help the 63,000 pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Step by step, the Government are delivering on their manifesto commitments to pensioners. That is a matter of right and also of respect to the senior members of our community. Step by step, we shall continue to do that until all our commitments are met.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about helplines. Many pensioners do not claim their full entitlement and we must do more to ensure that they do. I have recently discussed the matter with my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and we shall certainly be out there making sure that every pensioner who is eligible for the minimum income guarantee will know of its availability and will be helped to claim what is theirs—not as a privilege from the Government, but as a 100 per cent. right for senior members of the community.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister is absolutely right and so is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray): the winter fuel payment is good because everyone receives it. The Minister was also right to say that Ministers need to do much more work to get take-up properly promoted. The Government have said for some time that pilot schemes—one is in the west coast of Scotland—are trying to find out why men over 65 and women over 60 do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled. What will be done about that, and when will we start to see some results?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on these matters and he knows the problem of uptake. There is a complex pattern of reasons for that. Sometimes, older people simply do not want to claim everything that is due to them. I would strongly discourage that attitude. People who have given their life's work and commitment to this society are entitled to every penny that the law allows them to take.
Perhaps I can use this medium to encourage people who think that they might be entitled to benefits that they do not receive to find out about them. They can go to their local Member of Parliament, a citizens advice bureau or Help the Aged to obtain the information that they require. There is no cost in getting that advice. If people, particularly at this time of year, do not receive everything to which they are entitled, we want to know about it and we want to assist. I have spoken recently to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security—there is an intention to promote uptake and we shall continue to do that.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems facing pensioners in the highlands and islands, in particular, is the high fuel prices that they have to pay for domestic heating? Will he therefore undertake to talk to the Office of Fair Trading to make sure that its current inquiry into petrol prices also considers the important problem of high fuel prices for domestic heating?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. I am aware that, in some places, the cost of domestic heating oil has doubled. I do not think that that is justifiable in terms of the market in oil, and I shall certainly pass my hon. Friend's comments to the Office of Fair Trading. We are doing many things to attack the general problem of exceptionally high fuel prices in the remoter areas of the country.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome what has been done to help pensioners. However, has the Minister been assured that staff in pensions offices and in post offices are aware of the situation? What steps have been taken to deal with men of over-60, who are on pensions but who are not pensioners in the state sense, so that they can receive their entitlement? How far have we


gone down the road to rectifying that problem and protecting those who were in respite care on about 20 September and who have been disqualified from the winter fuel allowance at a time when they need it?

Mr. Wilson: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I am sure that he knows of the legal action that was raised. As a result of that, 190,000 pensioners in Scotland will be eligible for backdated payments and 150,000 will be eligible for future payments. As he will recognise, the Government have quickly accepted that judgment.
On all fronts, we are doing our best to make sure that pensioners get what they are entitled to. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments about men over the age of 60 to the attention of colleagues at the Department of Social Security.

Working Families Tax Credit

Mr. Bill Tynan: What steps the Government are taking to publicise the working families tax credit in Scotland. [104928]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): We have launched a major press and media campaign to inform those who will benefit from the working families tax credit of their right to assistance. As a result, the helpline has received more than 45,000 inquiries in Scotland alone.

Mr. Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and on behalf of 2,089 families in my constituency I want to express gratitude for the introduction of the working families tax credit—which will make those families, on average, £1,250 better-off this year than last. Will my right hon. Friend give the House a commitment that the Government will continue to do all they can to publicise the working families tax credit, so as to ensure maximum take-up?

Dr. Reid: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend of that. We are proud of the fact that this Labour Government are the first ever to have committed themselves to the abolition of poverty. The working families tax credit plays a major part in that effort, as do the minimum wage and our assistance to pensioners. It is significant that, every time the great issue of tackling poverty is raised in the House, there is a complete lack of response from Opposition Members. Today, not one Conservative or Scottish National party Member has attempted to participate in discussion of poverty or the working families tax credit.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best thing—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am calling question 3.

National Minimum Wage

Mr. Davidson: How many people in Scotland have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. [104929]
I apologise for not having asked the question at the proper time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. I like the House to make progress, but not quite that speedily.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I agree with both what my hon. Friend tried to say and what he is about to say. We anticipate that as many as 145,000 employees in Scotland might benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage.

Mr. Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend recall all those siren voices that told us that, if the national minimum wage were introduced, economic disaster would result and jobs would be lost in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom? Is he aware that since the general election, unemployment in my constituency has been cut by 30 per cent.? That is something of which the Government should be proud. Does he agree that, if a national minimum wage of £3.60 is good, a national minimum wage of even more in the current year would be even better?

Dr. Reid: On the first part of his second statement, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The scare stories put around about the detrimental effects of introducing a national minimum wage have been proved false. For example, far from falling, staff levels in small firms have risen by 11 per cent. in the past year. As my hon. Friend will be aware, unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest level for almost a quarter of a century, and many jobs have been created. It is important to set the minimum wage at a level that assists hundreds of thousands of people, but is not so high that it affects employment. We have succeeded in doing that.
Again, I note that, as we work through those difficult issues, hon. Members representing the Scottish National party and the Conservative party show no interest in measures designed to help people in Scotland out of poverty.

Student Finance

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor regarding the implications for the block grant of the Scottish independent inquiry into student finance. [104930]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that not entirely informative reply. Tonight is Burns night and, like Scots around the world, the Secretary of State and his Ministers will be praising Robert Burns for his poetic eloquence and adherence to the cause of equality. However, as usual, the Government say one thing and do another. Their shabby deal with the Liberal Democrats to share power in the Scottish Executive has meant that they have taken steps on tuition fees in Scotland that shatter


completely any idea of equality of opportunity in education throughout the United Kingdom. I appreciate that the Secretary of State—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is losing the ear of the House; she is almost losing my ear, too. I must have a question from her. She has made enough statements.

Mrs. Laing: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State, in his discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has asked him whether he can justify the fact that my constituents will have to pay fees if they attend Scottish universities whereas the Chancellor's constituents in Dunfermline, East will not? Where is the equality in that?

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Lady for her informative question. I was not aware that Burns had spoken of any deal apart from the one that went away with the excise man in his literature. However, I bow to her greater knowledge on this subject.
The hon. Lady is commenting on press speculation. I understand that there may be an announcement this afternoon. After that, I think that it will be legitimate to comment on its text. It is rather difficult to comment on the detail before that has been announced. I would say—[Interruption.] As it happens, there will also be an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Both that announcement and that of the First Minister in Scotland will be made today. These announcements are designed to promote access by less well-off and disadvantaged students to further and higher education. That is of interest to those on the Government Benches and, I hope, to those who occupy some of the Opposition Benches—but obviously not the Conservative Benches.
The Scottish Executive must find its own way to implement the objective. That is its right, and along with that goes the responsibility both to explain its decision and to say from where the finance to fund the changes will come. Tough decisions will have to be made by the Scottish Executive and by the House.

Mrs. Irene Adams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bard, on this Burns day, may have given the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) a simpler answer? He wrote:
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us.

Dr. Reid: Yes.

Sir Robert Smith: I am reluctant to get drawn into any more analogies with Burns. I thank the Secretary of State for recognising that spending decisions by the Scottish Parliament are a matter for that Parliament. Therefore, does he welcome the fact that any decision by the Scottish Executive to abolish tuition fees will be a decision of the

Executive to recognise the wishes of the Scottish electorate as implemented through the Scottish Parliament?

Dr. Reid: It is in the nature of devolution that the power and the right to make these decisions goes to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. It is therefore inherent that they must say and explain where the money is coming from and to remove that money from some other area of spending within the block grant. That will mean tough decisions for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament.
The prerogative of demanding power without responsibility lies historically, I think, with organisations such as the Scottish National party, which does not want to take responsibility for making tough decisions and which will approach these matters with only a critical mind. As I have said, there are tough decisions to be made, and the First Minister will make them. When that is done, and when the Government make announcements, the objective will be to see whether we can promote access by the less better off—those from a less well-off family background—to further and higher education.
It is long overdue that we promoted that through the Government and the Scottish Executive. The previous Conservative Government and Conservative Members were never remotely interested in such access, and they are not remotely interested in it now.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unacceptable to expect constituents in Exeter—indeed, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—to pay for a system for which they have not voted and from which they cannot benefit? Will he give the House a categorical assurance that the costs of the new student finance arrangements for Scotland will be met by Scottish taxpayers, through the council tax if necessary?

Dr. Reid: There will be no extra costs above the block grant. My hon. Friend may not understand that, so I shall explain it. Money that is allocated to any new scheme for student fees, or any other aspect of education, will have to be taken from some other item in the block grant which has already been agreed. No additional expense will arise from any of the decisions. The First Minister in the Scottish Executive will have to make tough decisions about the source of the money. That is the nature of Government and of making prudent choices. It applies in the House, and it will apply in the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Tim Boswell: As the Government and the Executive have ducked and wriggled to try to keep their coalition together and to fulfil European law, they have created anomalies for English students in Scotland and now for Scottish students in England. Does not the Secretary of State fear that such decisions, together with the separate but related issue of research selectivity—which operates differently in Scotland—may threaten the integrity and unity of the British higher education system?

Dr. Reid: If Conservative Members can attack Europe and the idea of joining others in the same question, they will do so. The majority of people in this country want the Union that is the United Kingdom to be modernised. They are at ease with the fact that some decisions may be


passed to the Scottish Parliament, with the proviso that power is accompanied by the responsibility for finding the money from its existing budgets, even if that means hard choices. The Government, like the majority of people, are at ease with that. It will enrich the United Kingdom.
The unity of the country was undermined by the divisions, fractions and splits caused by 20 years of a Tory Government who did not give a damn about what happened in large areas of the north of England, Wales and Scotland, where our industries were decimated and so many of our people thrown into poverty.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State and I agree that one of the consequences of devolution is that we have to accept that the Scottish Parliament and Executive may decide to do things differently from this place and the Government. However, in those circumstances, would not it be iniquitous if, after the Scottish Executive decided to defer payments for Scottish students tuition fees, the Government blocked their ability to do that for students who attend universities south of the border? That is completely contrary to the spirit of devolution, a fetter on the Scottish Parliament's discretion and, if it happens, a complete disgrace.

Dr. Reid: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman was calling for or how much he was prepared to spend. I can assure him that some people behind me will be tabulating the public expenditure cost to which he has committed the Conservative party. [Interruption.] We should not make decisions and promises unless we are prepared to pay for effecting them. The Government will not do that. I note that the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that his party is committed to abolishing fees in English universities.
On the hon. Gentleman's general question, it is the Scottish Parliament's right to meet the objectives that the Scottish Executive has set out. They are the same as the Government's objectives—to promote, by the mechanisms that they determine, access to higher and further education for people from less well-off backgrounds.
Along with that right goes the responsibility to find the money from other areas and budgets. That is a perfectly equitable solution. I have already said that accompanying the First Minister's statement will be an announcement by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment later today, which will be aimed at exactly the same objectives.

Mr. Grieve: The Secretary of State has completely contradicted himself. Earlier he said that this matter is for the Scottish Executive to determine out of the block grant. We are talking therefore about an exclusively Scottish matter. It appears that the Scottish Executive's desire to extend those concessions to Scottish students—paying for it out of the block grant—at English universities has been stopped by the Government. What is the justification?

Dr. Reid: It is nothing of the kind. The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. In reality, the proposals being discussed by the Scottish Executive, the details of which will be announced in the near future, must of course be subject to the laws of Europe as well as of this country. If that is a novelty to the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that he starts

reading briefs again. It is an elementary fact that we have to abide by our treaties and treaty obligations. The decisions on this have been made by the Scottish Executive and will be announced later today. I am making the point that along with the power to make those decisions goes the responsibility to explain them and to find the money to finance them.

Mrs. Laing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I cannot take points of order until later.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Devolution

Mr. John Bercow: What advice she has given to the Government about devolution issues since her appointment. [104951]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): There is a long-standing convention, followed by successive Governments, that neither the substance of Law Officers' advice nor the fact that they have been consulted is disclosed outside Government. I see no reason for departing from that convention.

Mr. Bercow: I thank the Advocate-General for that reply, which was spectacularly uninformative even by the standards of the Government. Has the hon. and learned Lady advised the Government on the impact of European Union law on the Cubie report—specifically in so far as it relates to Scottish students studying at English universities? If the answer is that she has proffered advice to her right hon. and hon. Friends, can she explain to the House the basis in law for the UK Government's assertion that the leaked proposals of the Scottish Executive for the reform of tuition fees cannot apply to Scottish students studying at English universities?

The Advocate-General: I regret that I obviously did not make my last answer plain. The words "tim'rous beastie" leap to mind. All this Scots stuff! The existence and substance of Law Officer advice is not, by long-standing parliamentary convention adopted by all parts of the House, disclosed outside Government. The Advocate-General is here not as an adviser to Opposition Members but to the UK Government. I see no reason to depart from that long-standing convention.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: I will try to be helpful to my hon. and learned Friend. Is it not the case that what characterises the


devolution settlement is the partnership between the two Parliaments? Can she confirm that she is in regular contact with her colleagues in the Scottish Executive?

The Advocate-General: I am, of course, in regular contact with my Law Officers from the Scottish Executive. I regret to say that, as is normal, I cannot advise hon. Members of the substance.

Mr. Bercow: Then what is the point of questions?

The Advocate-General: If I may, with your permission, Madam Speaker, take that sedentary intervention, the point of my being here is to answer questions that are properly phrased. If I get any properly phrased questions, I shall be delighted to answer them.

Mr. Grieve: I have never thought of the hon. and learned Lady as a "wee … tim'rous beastie", but may I make a simple inquiry? She will be aware of this afternoon's exchanges on European law, which is presumably within her remit in respect of advising the Government. Can we take it, therefore, that we shall hear from them shortly as to what European law issues would prevent the Scottish Executive, if they so wished, from funding Scottish students under the Scottish funding system at English universities?

The Advocate-General: Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that under the Scotland Act 1998 I have certain statutory duties to consider Bills introduced by the Scottish Parliament and to advise on whether they are within its legislative competence. There is no Bill of any kind on that subject for me to consider. When there is I shall consider it, as I consider any other Bills that are introduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Community Legal Service

Mr. John Healey: How many contracts for the new Community Legal Service have been awarded in Rotherham to (a) solicitors' firms and (b) voluntary advice agencies. [104958]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Sixteen contracts, which started on 1 January 2000, to do civil advice and assistance and representation in family and immigration cases have been let to solicitors working in the Rotherham area. A further 11 have been let to solicitors in the Dearne valley area. A contract has been let to Mexborough citizens advice bureau for a full-time debt case worker and support costs.

Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for that information, but is he aware that there is a lack of contracted provision in some legal categories? Can he explain what steps he taking to close that gap and confirm whether there is scope for fresh bids from other firms for that work?

Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to that matter. There is a deficit in the Rotherham area of firms that are available to do social welfare law and there remains scope for additional contracts to be let to solicitors' firms there, although naturally—in accordance with the contracting scheme that the Government are operating—any firm would have to show competence to get a contract by passing the preliminary audit of the Legal Aid Board's franchise requirements.

Courts Access (Sussex)

Mr. Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of access to courts within Sussex. [104959]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Government policy is that the administration of magistrates courts is best conducted locally. Decisions concerning the location and number of magistrates courts in its area are for the relevant courts committee to determine. With regard to Crown and county courts, the Court Service is required to monitor and review the viability of its court network. There are no current changes planned in respect of accessibility to the Crown or county court network in Sussex.

Mr. Baker: Does the Minister agree that in terms of justice courts have to be local and accessible? In the light of the proposed merger of magistrates court functions in east and west sussex, can she guarantee that she will be unwilling to agree to any closure of magistrates courts there as a consequence of bringing the administration together?

Jane Kennedy: It is for the new merged magistrates courts committee to decide how best to deploy its resources, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall always support changes that lead to the provision of a better and more efficient service for court users.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Has the Minister given a full and honest answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker)? She said that decisions in respect of magistrates courts should be taken locally, but is she not incorrect? That decision has been influenced by the amount of money available and that money is advanced by the Government through the Lord Chancellor's Department. The problems of Sussex are reflected in many other parts of the country—not least Cheshire, and Macclesfield in particular.

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman knows that magistrates courts committees have to manage their budgets within the resources available to them. Those committees are made up of local magistrates drawn from local magistrates benches. Most of the magistrates courts that have closed so far have been ones that the committees


no longer felt able to justify, either because substandard facilities would have to be replaced or because they were satellite courts—local council chambers that were severely lacking in necessary facilities, for example.

Madam Speaker: The Minister has now widened the question somewhat. Mr. Burnett, I will allow you to put a question in that case.

Mr. John Burnett: I am extremely grateful to you, Madam Speaker.
I would remind the Minister and the House of what the Minister just said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), to the effect that justice should be done and seen to be done locally. Will she please explain that to the magistrates courts committee of Devon and Cornwall, which is now discussing a proposal to close 13 magistrates courts in those counties?

Jane Kennedy: I am aware of the proposals announced last week. I am also aware of the local response to them. All such decisions when considered by magistrates courts committees locally will be subject to the right of appeal. Those appeals, if they are lodged in the cases of the courts to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will come to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. At that point it will be appropriate for me to comment on the detail.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In Sussex, just as in Cheshire, I suspect, there is no geographical representation on the magistrates courts committees that are apparently charged with these decisions. That means that those of us who feel very strongly that local justice is best available locally are in some difficulty when we are told that a non-elected committee is taking major decisions that affect the location of courts. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind.

Jane Kennedy: We do listen very carefully in the Department to the case that is presented when appeals come forward. All the points that are made by local representation, by the paying authority and by hon. Members, are listened to very carefully, and consideration is given in the greatest detail to the case that is made.

McKenzie Friends

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received regarding changes to the status of McKenzie Friends. [104960]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Since my previous reply on 14 December to the hon. Member, my fellow Parliamentary Secretary has had a useful and constructive meeting with representatives from Families Need Fathers. I and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor have received no further representations.

Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. But I should like to ask him again whether he understands that many litigants in person with no legal representation in family court cases find the legal

proceedings very worrying; they are very disturbed by them and the proceedings can often be traumatic. For that reason they need a friend or assistant in court with them—that is, they need a McKenzie friend. Given the abolition of the right to a McKenzie friend in chambers or in court, can the Minister give me more detail as to what specific steps his Department will take to reinstate that important right?

Mr. Lock: The Government have no plans at present to place the role of McKenzie friends on a statutory footing, though we recognise the important role they play in some cases. The judges have developed common law rules so that litigants in person are permitted a McKenzie friend in proceedings in open court, and in most proceedings in chambers, unless the court is satisfied that fairness and justice, or the confidential nature of the information that will be disclosed in the court case—which is why the proceedings may be in Chambers in the first place—do not make it appropriate for a party to be assisted by a McKenzie friend.
The nature of private proceedings may in some cases make it undesirable for a McKenzie friend to be present. The Government are content to leave the development of policy in this area to the courts.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Would more McKenzie friends mean fewer lawyers and fewer QCs? That would save us an absolute fortune. Has my hon. Friend seen the article in The Times today, headed
It's time for barristers to fight back",
in which Richard Benson QC says that earnings of £500,000 a year are a derisory amount?

Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that article to the attention of the House. I must say that the Government consider that sums paid from taxpayers' funds to barristers may—and we are considering this at the moment—be related to the sums that we pay other very important public service workers, such as teachers, doctors, nurses and social workers. I do not think there are many nurses—despite the generosity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the recent announcement of nurses' pay awards—who are collecting half a million pounds a year.

Crime Victims

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What plans she has to ensure that information is made available to victims in a timely and sensitive way about forthcoming appeals on sentence by criminals convicted of serious crimes. [104961]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Arrangements have been in place at the Court of Appeal criminal division for some time to inform the victims or their families of appeals in cases involving death and serious sexual offences. Preparations are in hand to extend notification to all cases.

Mrs. Gilroy: I think my hon. Friend will know of the case of my constituent Mrs. Joan Kiely, who last October learned from a journalist that the sentence of the perpetrator of a vicious attack on her had been shortened from 10 to eight years. My hon. Friend said that arrangements were in hand to extend notification. Can she say when she expects that to happen; and will she work with the Attorney-General's Department and the Home Office to ensure that it happens as quickly as possible?

Jane Kennedy: I agree that it was not acceptable for Mrs. Kiely to find out what had happened from a local journalist. Preparations are in hand to extend notification to all victims or families, regardless of the nature of the offence, when the Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal against conviction or a sentence. There would also be provision for the Crown Prosecution Service to notify the criminal appeal office of cases in which the victims needed to be kept informed. The record would be noted accordingly, and notification would be sent at all stages.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister will recognise that members of all parties have consistently backed the important work of the victim support organisation. I hope she will be able to confirm that the Government plan to continue that backing; but what about the interests of the victims of those who, although acknowledged to have committed serious crimes, have cheated the courts by no longer being around?
Conservative Members find it outrageous that, as has now been revealed, as soon as the Government came to power the Lord Chancellor tried to intervene to stop the inquiry into the affairs of the late Robert Maxwell. Does the Minister accept that the pensioners who were victims of that great criminal do not want to allow the inquiry to be stopped by her noble Friend? She may wish that Robert Maxwell and his crimes had never happened, but Conservative Members will ensure that everyone knows that members of her Government were far too close to the late Robert Maxwell.

Jane Kennedy: I am not aware of the claims that the hon. Gentleman has made—[Interruption.] I shall look for the report that he mentioned.
When notifying victims of matters affecting the case in which they have been involved, the court needs not just proper technological support, but the agreement of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service on the way in which the information is provided and notification is given. I have not seen the specifics in the newspaper report to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but perhaps I will read it and we can discuss it later.

Community Legal Service

Ms Sally Keeble: What provision will be made within the community legal service to ensure that people with learning difficulties and mental health problems attain proper access to legal services. [104962]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The quality assurance standard developed for community legal service providers requires proper access for all clients, including people with learning difficulties and mental health problems. All providers will also have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Ms Keeble: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on a number of occasions, the Northampton branch of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship have raised the problems that people experience in gaining access to legal services if they have recurring mental health problems? Does his answer—which I welcome—mean that such people will have easy access to services, and will also be able to obtain the detailed help that they may need because their problems have made their cases more complicated?

Mr. Lock: My hon. Friend has been diligent in raising issues affecting an important section of the community in her constituency—people with mental health problems—who need legal advice. There are now two firms of solicitors in the Northampton area with mental health contracts—quality-assured lawyers, who can provide services for such people.
It is important for every firm involved in the community legal service—whether it is dealing with employment, debt or mental health law—to recognise the special requirements of people with learning difficulties, respond to them and comply fully with its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act.

Magistrates

Angela Smith: What assessment she has made of the occupations of magistrates. [104963]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): As part of achieving social balance on Benches, each local advisory committee is required to ensure that no more than 15 per cent. of the Bench is drawn from a particular occupational group. Returns are made to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor every year in respect of each Bench.

Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but an individual's occupation and position within that occupation have a direct impact on the individual's ability to have time off work and therefore to serve as a magistrate. Will my right hon. Friend—I am promoting her early—look carefully at the matter and give advice to employers to encourage their employees to take up the role of magistrate, giving them time off work to do so?

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Working magistrates are drawn from a wide range of occupations. If that is to continue, it will be important for employers to allow staff time off work to sit as magistrates. It is important, too, that work colleagues understand that time spent away from the workplace is not a skive, but a valuable service to the community. I pay tribute to the many employers who play their part in the criminal justice system by allowing staff to take time to sit as magistrates.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Millennium Compliance

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment she has made of the value for money obtained by expenditure on millennium compliance. [104973]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The expenditure finally incurred was slightly less than originally expected. It was met from existing agreed spending plans, not by extra subvention. It successfully addressed the substantial problems incurred during the programme, which, if ignored, would have led to material disruption to public services. All that suggests that it was good value for money.

Mr. Robathan: Madam Speaker, after your advice yesterday: what bug?

Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am afraid that he shows his ignorance by that question. There are hundreds of examples of problems. The Benefits Agency has made it plain that it would not have been able to continue to pay benefits. Organisations such as Sainsbury and Tesco have made it plain that their operations would have collapsed if they had not undertaken the work that was required.

Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British industry as well as Government have gained two considerable benefits from the exercise? First, a whole breed of managers running British industry now realises how critical information technology in their companies is to their future. Secondly, we have probably had one of the biggest upgrades in IT, which will be beneficial to our world trade.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, I have just had a conversation with an expert on management issues who has attempted to assess the impact of the work and has made exactly those points about the value to British business of cleaning up much of their IT, of investing in IT and, most of all, of recognising the need for management of IT, which is not always done.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Modernisation

Mr. Paul Clark: If she will make a statement on (a) the changes made in the House as a result of the work of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and (b) their impact on (i) hon. Members and (ii) staff of the House and of hon. Members. [104974]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Forty-seven of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation have already been implemented. They include more Bills scrutinised in draft and experiments with earlier sittings on Thursday and with sittings in Westminster Hall. Together they have provided more time for debates, better structured debates and better use of time for Members and staff.

Mr. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are pleased to see progress, but bearing in mind the fact that the remit of the Modernisation Committee is to look at efficient and effective use of time in the House of Commons, does she agree that the recent antics by the Conservative party call for greater timetabling of legislation? Would that not be a matter for the Modernisation Committee to consider?

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend may know, it is one of the issues that, on an all-party basis, the Modernisation Committee considered at the outset of the Parliament. It recommended that we should make greater use of programming, so that we can be confident that the most important issues in legislation that comes before the House are adequately covered and that time is not wasted on things that are not important. However, I fear that the understanding and agreement across the House in the earliest days of this Parliament seem to be waning. My hon. Friend is right to identify that, if we continue to have exceptional problems, that will cause further difficulties which the Government and the House will have to consider.

Sir George Young: The Modernisation Committee's first report mentioned use of Joint Committees with the Upper House as a useful way of making progress on pre-legislative scrutiny. In order to deal with reports that the Government are planning to drag their feet on stage 2 of House of Lords reform, will the right hon. Lady tell the House when she proposes to establish the promised Joint Committee to take forward the Wakeham report?

Mrs. Beckett: As the right hon. Gentleman is already well aware, the Government have not made a decision on the timetable for that Joint Committee. He will also know that, of the half dozen draft Bills that have been considered in Committees of the House or of both Houses, two—the draft Local Government Bill and Financial Services and Markets Bill—were considered in Joint Committees.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that democracy is indeed a messy and expensive business; that the timetabling of all Bills would lead irrevocably to Back Benchers of all parties having fewer and fewer rights in this place; and that the fact that Front Benchers may agree on a particular measure is not—if she will forgive my saying so, with the greatest respect—any guarantee that it is in the interests either of the House of Commons or of the electorate?

Mrs. Beckett: I completely understand the basic point that my hon. Friend is making. First, however, I should


remind her that the Modernisation Committee is not composed only of Front Benchers—only two Front Benchers serve on it—but contains mostly Back Benchers, from both sides of the House.
Secondly, I accept that timetabling all Bills would have implications. I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend, but this is one issue on which we do not agree. In opposition, I took the view that major legislation should be timetabled. As an Opposition Front Bencher, I always pursued that policy in seeking to ensure that we dealt with the issues that really should be dealt with, because I have never thought that the public understand why some hon. Members waste time on what hours or days we should sit. I take the same attitude in government as I took in opposition.

Palace of Westminster (Access)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What action she proposes to take to deal with the difficulties experienced by hon. Members in obtaining access to the Palace of Westminster during demonstrations immediately outside the precinct of the House. [104975]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The House approves the Sessional Order at the start of each Session, as it is a matter of constitutional importance that access be maintained. The Order is communicated to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis by the Serjeant at Arms. If the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) or any other hon. Member experiences difficulties, he or she should inform the Serjeant at Arms, so that the matter can be taken up with the Commissioner.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Some years ago, I took part in a demonstration of textile workers and clothing workers marching from Hyde park. The nearest we were allowed to the House of Commons was the Tate gallery, because it was stated that it would be inappropriate that hon. Members should risk being intimidated or hustled as they sought to gain easy and ready access to the precincts of the House of Commons.
Will the Leader of the House and the Government, with the other authorities, give consideration to preventing the demonstrations that now occur in very close proximity to the House—whether the demonstration is in favour of extraditing Senator Pinochet, of releasing Senator Pinochet, of establishing an English Parliament or of whatever it may be—so that hon. Members who need to gain ready access to this place do not have to struggle at certain times in the day to do so, and so that other people legitimately seeking access may gain it without being intimidated?

Mr. Tipping: I am fascinated by the notion of a demonstration, even a textile demonstration, being led by the hon. Gentleman. It is no wonder it was stopped at the Tate gallery, as he has a reputation for intimidating people. More seriously, however, demonstrations seem to have been allowed to come closer to the House, and that

may raise issues. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Serjeant at Arms is in contact with police on the matter, and we shall have to consider possible solutions.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the on-going demonstration to extradite Senator Pinochet—who is no more a senator than I am—is being held across the road and that it could in no way be an obstruction to hon. Members seeking to enter the House? Will you, Madam Speaker, also tell the shop steward on the Tory Benches that, last night, I took the opportunity of going along and congratulating the demonstrators who want Pinochet tried and brought to justice? I told them that they were doing a wonderful job.

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend will know that the demonstrators play some wonderful music and chant some wonderful chants, which have extended my own repertoire quite a lot. However, he is right that the demonstration is on the other side of the road. As far as I and the Serjeant at Arms are aware, no problems have been caused by either side involved in it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Millennium Bug

Dr. David Clark: What assessment she has made of the effect of the millennium bug internationally over the millennium date change. [104976]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): First, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend, when he was in government, to tackling the millennium bug. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been following closely the international year 2000 scene for the past two years. A special unit was set up over the date-change period to monitor events as they happened. There were no reports of any significant disruptions to infrastructure systems around the world. The minor problems that did crop up were dealt with quickly and posed no real threat to essential services.

Dr. Clark: Will my hon. Friend continue to reiterate the point that the millennium bug did not cause international chaos for the simple reason that careful planning, precise preparation and pre-emptive remedial action had been put in hand to make sure that that did not happen? Were not the Government in the vanguard in that respect? Will he give the House some examples of breakdowns overseas—perhaps in the United States—that were rectified in time but which otherwise would have caused considerable difficulties?

Mr. Tipping: My right hon. Friend is right. There were problems both here and overseas, and the United States had difficulties with its satellite systems. However, he makes the more important point that things do not go well without careful preparation and planning. I am delighted that the Government and the private sector in this country


were in the vanguard in that matter, as my right hon. Friend says, and that we were able to share our knowledge and information with others.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Modernisation

Mr. Phil Sawford: What assessment she has made of the impact of her Department's proposals for changing practice and procedure in the House; and if she will make a statement. [104978]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I believe that proposals for change in the House have been well received and are generally positive, but they are being kept under review through the Modernisation Committee.

Mr. Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I especially welcome the Modernisation Committee's decision to publish more Bills in draft form, which allows more interested parties and concerned groups to contribute to debate, both in the House and outside it. It also allows more pressure groups and constituents to put forward their views on the Government's legislative proposals. Does my right hon. Friend agree that publishing draft Bills has led to better informed debate, in Parliament and across the country?

Mrs. Beckett: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend and all hon. Members will know from their Standing Committee experience over the years that outside organisations—which often have useful information, or a different point of view or slant on legislation—frequently only realise the effect that proposals might have on them when the closing stages of legislative debate are under way. Sometimes that realisation only comes when a Bill has already passed on to the statute book. That cannot be good for good governance or for the balance of good legislation. Anything that improves the situation can only be welcome.

Secondary Legislation

Mr. Norman Baker: If she will bring forward proposals to reform the system of parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. [104979]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Procedure Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the scrutiny of delegated legislation, and I shall study its report with interest.

Mr. Baker: May I suggest that it would be sensible to look at the way in which statutory instruments are dealt with? At present, the Committees that scrutinise statutory instruments are required either to reject them in total, or to approve them. Sometimes that means that innocuous changes that are agreed on all sides to be important and valid cannot be made. In those instances, the requirement that the Committee either accept or reject a proposal renders it a sledgehammer used to crack a nut, and causes measures that are faulty to be passed. If the Committees were allowed to amend such instruments, would not that help the Government and the legislative process in this House?

Mr. Tipping: As I said, the Procedure Committee is considering the matter. The Wakeham report also contains some interesting proposals. Statutory instruments that go before a Committee reflect the Government's considered view. Given that, it is a question of whether the Committee supports or rejects them in total.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that the method of decision making used by the Deregulation Committee, where Government proposals may be changed, should be used as the norm for allowing a debate if the Euro-Committees make a different decision from the one originally put before them?

Mr. Tipping: The Deregulation Committee has certainly been useful and I believe that in time its role will be expanded. My hon. Friend will know that the Deregulation Committee already looks at statutory instruments, and that the Government take note of its concerns.

Points of Order

Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In an answer to my question earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State for Scotland helpfully told the House that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment intended to make an important announcement this afternoon on student fees. Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment may, by written answer, announce to the House an intended change of policy, if the right hon. Gentleman does not come to the House, and to the Chamber, how can my hon. Friends and I, on behalf of our constituents, ask him questions about that important change of policy?

Madam Speaker: I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that, when there is a change of policy or any policy is initiated, it is for the Secretary of State concerned either to come to the House to announce it at the Dispatch Box or to do so by means of a written answer. That is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State.

Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Monday 17 January I tabled, under Standing Order No. 17, 11 named-day questions for answer by the Department of Trade and Industry. On Tuesday 18 January I tabled a further eight questions that should have been answered yesterday. Given that all 19 questions have been responded to by the Secretary of State saying that he will reply as soon as possible, and given that all the questions relate to TransTec, Hollis Industries and related matters—and this is now a matter of great public concern—could I ask your advice as to how I may extract substantive information, some of which must already be in the records of the Department of Trade and Industry, to get some answers to my questions?

Madam Speaker: That is a very difficult point of order from the hon. Lady. There are Ministers present who will no doubt have noted her point of order, and I hope that they will see that the terms of the Standing Order are fulfilled.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice and protection concerning the Disqualifications Bill, which will be considered by the House in Committee and on Report later this afternoon. When the Bill received its Second Reading yesterday, many hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed concern and asked questions about that Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) kindly agreed to consider those concerns and queries.
My point of order relates to the fact that the Disqualifications Bill is not emergency legislation; it is not urgent. Yet Second Reading took place on Monday and we are now being asked to consider the Bill, in Committee and on Report, on Tuesday. Additional amendments have appeared on the amendment paper only today, which we have therefore had very little time to consider. My hon. Friends and I believe that that is an

abuse of the House. We seek your protection and guidance as to what we can do to have more time to deliberate on the Bill rather than rushing it from Second Reading on Monday straight to Committee and Report on Tuesday.

Madam Speaker: I do not determine the urgency of any legislation in the House, and have no responsibility for the daily agenda. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is for the business managers and the usual channels to deal with these matters. I would have thought that that might have been done over the preceding weeks.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As a result of the concerns expressed yesterday on the Disqualifications Bill, I sought advice behind the Chair as to whether there would be any opportunity to enable Members to challenge yesterday's motion on the timing of the Committee of the whole House.
We did not oppose the idea that the Bill should come to a Committee of the whole House—and nor, indeed, did other Members who were unhappy about the timing—so there was no objection to that fact when the Government moved the motion. There was opposition over when the Committee of the whole House should meet, but the Clerks advised me—perfectly properly—that there is no way of challenging the Government's choice of date for Committees on public business, as there is for those on private business.
I seek your guidance, or your consideration, Madam Speaker, as to whether there might be ways in which colleagues on both sides of the House, at any stage, could challenge the Government's inconsiderate decision as to when a Committee of the whole House might sit. Today's Committee might sit late tonight, or through the night, and many people will not have had a chance to consider yesterday's proceedings.

Madam Speaker: I should like to have had notice of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I can tell him, briefly, that I know of no way of challenging the Government when they decide that business will be done the following day.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Further to that point of order but not directly related to it, Madam Speaker. The Government are using their overall majority of 170 to override not only the interests of Back Benchers, but your traditional responsibility to Members of the House. I refer to the proposal, made last week, that a motion would be put to the House to circumvent the use of the Oath to admit Members to the House and, thereafter, to its facilities. I endorse the points of order made by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and ask for your advice as to whether, when there is consistent abuse by Government of the protocols of the House, there are any means whereby Back Benchers' interests can be protected.

Madam Speaker: I see no abuse of the House. The British electorate gave one particular party a large


majority; that is the democratic process. If I thought that there was abuse in any way, I would want to be the first to ensure that it ceased.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to cover the same ground again. However, earlier, you gave a ruling in respect of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) in which you referred to decisions of Governments to make a statement, or to respond to a matter of importance to the House through a written answer. Bearing in mind the fact that the package on student fees in Scotland was decided by the coalition Government in Edinburgh yesterday—indeed, I took part in a "Newsnight" Scotland broadcast in which the details of the package were discussed quite freely—would it not have been appropriate and a courtesy to the House, either for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box today to make a statement, or at least for there to have been a written answer in today's Hansard?

Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some time ago.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I have dealt with all those points of order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that reference has already been made to this matter, but about two weeks ago I asked a question about the fact that the Committee considering the Disqualifications Bill was to be held immediately after Second Reading. It has repeatedly been said, both yesterday and today, that there were no objections at the time. In future, will the House, which is proud of its record in protecting minorities, bear in mind, through its business managers, that there are more parties than the two main parties?

Madam Speaker: I always try to remember all the minority parties in the House, because they too must have a voice in all our proceedings.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a completely separate point of order.

Madam Speaker: I thought it might be.

Mr. Bercow: I apologise, Madam Speaker, because earlier I expressed myself infelicitously, as a result of

which you thought that I was trying, in a sense, to piggyback on my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton); I assure you that I was not.
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on a point of order, of which, by virtue of the circumstances, I could not have given you advance notice. You will recall that I asked the Advocate-General for Scotland whether she had offered the Government advice on the impact of European Union law on the Cubie report and she declined to answer that question, saying that it was not custom and practice to do so.
However, given that a cursory reading of the newspapers over the past few days makes it clear beyond doubt that the Government and their officials have been briefing off the record to the effect that EU law would be breached if the Scottish Executive's proposals applied to Scottish students studying at English universities, is it not reasonable for an hon. Member to ask the hon. and learned Lady a question about the advice that was offered, in the confident expectation that she might actually provide an answer?

Madam Speaker: I am familiar with the exchange that took place at that time, but the hon. Gentleman will of course appreciate that I am not responsible for the answers that Ministers give in the House.

Mr. Tim Boswell: On an entirely separate point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that, in the past week or two, there have been many exchanges in the House in connection with the provision of additional intensive care beds. That has been referred to variously by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, who last week at Question Time adumbrated a list—which included, I believe, eight particular instances—from which he then broke off.
Is it not somewhat surprising, therefore, that when I asked the Secretary of State for Health, by tabling a question which was answered by written answer late last night, to list the 100—or whatever number—intensive care beds that were created during the calendar year 1999, he told me that the statistics were not collected in that form? That puzzles me. I seek your guidance as to whether, when Back Benchers ask for such information, they are told that it does not exist while Ministers of the Crown can simultaneously purport to give that information, perhaps drawing on sources that are not made available to Back Benchers who request them.

Madam Speaker: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he pursues his questions by means of the Order Paper, perhaps by tabling further parliamentary questions—or he might write himself an early-day motion, making good publicity of the point that he has just made.

Parental Authority

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow parents to use reasonable force or chastisement when exercising authority over their children.
The world has changed a great deal since you and I were young, Madam Speaker. Much of that change has been for the good and much has been for the bad. Rising violent crime, as illustrated in a report last week, and graffiti and loutish behaviour on our streets are certainly among the bad. There has been an astonishing change in attitudes to bringing up children. In 1993—only seven years ago—a judge had before him a mother of two on appeal against a conviction for assault. She had spanked her nine-year-old with a slipper after catching the child stealing. The judge quashed the conviction and said,
If a parent cannot slipper a child, the world is going potty".
That was, of course, in the last century. We heard last week of Government proposals that could possibly send parents to prison for trying to discipline their children in that way. Many might think that common sense is being stood on its head, and that the world is indeed going potty.
The Government consultation document was entitled "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents". If anyone does not believe that political correctness runs wild in this Government, they should read the document. It is one of the most trite and condescending documents that they will ever see. Here is one short passage:
Being a parent can be hard work as well as tremendously rewarding".
I am sure that we are all grateful for that perceptive insight into the joys of parenthood. The document gives various options for change, including a ban on the use of a slipper or a cane. It is likely that that may be enshrined in law, which means that, should a parent use a slipper against a child, that child will presumably be removed from the parent's custody and the parent will certainly be taken to court, with all that that entails, and may even be sent to prison.
I am quite sure that most parents would rather never strike their children, and preferably not with a slipper or a cane, but I would suggest that it must be for the parent to decide, in the circumstances, how best to direct and teach a child.
Let me give an illustration. Suppose that a 12-year-old boy beats up another child, smaller and younger than himself. The parents of the two children confer, and the father agrees to punish the boy. Because he is nearly a teenager, the father uses a slipper on his backside. The police and social workers are alerted, and the child is taken into care. The father, if not sent to prison, is put under a restraining court order. Is that really sensible? Is that really what the British public believe should happen?
In a recent case, a father in Suffolk tried to restrain his 15-year-old daughter from going out with a 25-year-old man. I understand that he was concerned that she had been spending most of the night out with him—a legitimate concern to him and to the law. However, when the daughter complained to the police, the father was arrested and she was put in care for the night—where, incidentally, she had her nose pierced in an act of childish rebellion. As far as I am aware, neither the police nor the social

workers involved were interested in talking to the 25-year-old man, which suggests a strange sense of priorities.
The nannying new Labour Government now wishes to interfere even more in the relationship between a parent and a child. The Government believe that the state knows best, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. In Leicestershire, the case of Frank Beck remains notorious—a man given responsibility for running a children's home who raped, sexually abused and physically abused his charges, male and female, and some of his staff.
If that had been a unique case, perhaps one might trust the state to look after children in care. However, last year there were more than 200 allegations of sexual abuse of children in care against 138 individuals, and over 50 charges have arisen as a result so far.
Care workers are struggling with great difficulties in children's homes. I recall visiting one a few years ago in Leicestershire, and being told that staff had no power to prevent children from smoking. They could not, of course, restrain a child if he or she wished to go out in the evening. The house stank of cigarettes, 13-year-olds were becoming chain smokers and 14-year-old girls were encouraged to be on the pill.
I do not blame those social workers—indeed I blame the Children Act 1989 as much as anything—but who can doubt that a loving mother or father would not look after their children rather better than that? Sadly, it is true that a large proportion of children who are put into care go on to become homeless, and many go on to be criminals. My point is that the state is not necessarily the best body to determine how to bring up children. A parent almost certainly has more interest, cares more and loves a child more than the most dedicated social worker or police officer ever could. Surely we should support and trust parents in the challenging task of bringing up children, and we should support families as far as possible.
The break up of family bonds is intimately linked to the breakdown of law and order. It is in the family that we first learn to negotiate the boundaries of acceptable conduct and to recognise that we owe responsibilities to others as well as ourselves.
That is the profound wisdom of no less an august personage than the Prime Minister, who has admitted having to smack his children in the past.
If we believe in supporting families and parents, we should make their task easier, not more difficult. Not all parents are successful. Some are hopeless, some can be brutal and some can be downright evil, but generally parents are the best people to bring up their children.
An argument that is frequently used against corporal punishment is that violence begets violence. Leaving aside the report of a massive increase in violent crime last week—neatly published at the same time as the Government's consultation document—I suggest to those who search for the source of the violence and aggression in society that they switch on the television at any time of the day or night, go to a film in the west end, attend a professional football match or question the decision to allow Mike Tyson into the country. It is not parents reasonably chastising their children who have caused the massive rise in violent crime in our lifetimes.
There are already laws in place to cover physical harm to a child. The vast majority of parents would not wish to cause any harm to their children, and the existing law can


deal with the very small minority who might. However, this nannying new Labour Government wish to interfere and disrupt the relationship of parent and child yet further. I can already imagine the court cases and the nonsense that will be spouted in court in future.
Of course, the Government will say that the proposal is nothing to do with them and that they are being forced to obey a directive from the European Court of Human Rights. Whether that court, which was set up with the good intention of preventing a repeat of the horrors of the second world war, should have any jurisdiction over such matters is a moot point. However, for the Government to slope their shoulders and blame others ignores the fact that they have given the European Court of Human Rights authority over our courts through the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, the Government's proposals on page 14 of their consultation document show that they are determined to go beyond the court's ruling. They set out
ways in which the use of the defence of reasonable chastisement might be further limited.
Yes, they say, "further limited."
The Prime Minister is not someone whom I normally pray in aid. I am happier with this quote:
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him".
That has been passed down to us from the Book of Proverbs as, "spare the rod and spoil the child". Many parents bring up their children admirably without ever having to smack them and I congratulate those who do. For the others who feel that they may have to resort to smacking, the Bill gives some support.
I know that my sentiments in introducing the Bill will not find favour with the politically correct or with new Labour. Many in the House would like to explain why they know better how to bring up a child than a child's parents do. I hope that my contribution may have twisted a few politically correct tails and will goad somebody into explaining why the nanny state knows best. Indeed, Madam Speaker, I can see that somebody is trying to catch your eye.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I was truly sorry to hear that diatribe against the efforts of thousands of hard-working and caring residential social workers and foster carers. If the hon. Gentleman has to make his points by denigrating the efforts of people in the care system, that is extremely unfortunate. Let me also point out to him that, in proposing the use of implements to chastise children, he flies in the face of public opinion as expressed in the Government's consultation paper "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents".
The best that can be said about this ten-minute Bill is that it is premature given last week's publication of the consultation document on the physical punishment of children. We have heard a great deal in the past week about the alleged common sense of physical punishment. Perhaps we should listen to today's children rather than harking back to our own childhoods or placing too much reliance on opinion surveys of adults.
Research published last year by Carolyne Willow and Tina Hyder on behalf of the National Children's Bureau and Save the Children records the views of 76 children aged between five and eight. When they were asked about smacking, they said:
it's what parents do when they hit you … only they call it a smack";
it feels like someone has banged you with a hammer, it makes you feel sore, angry and you cry";
you feel as though you want to run away";
it hurts and it's painful inside, it's like breaking your bones";
and
it hurts a lot and it make you unhappy".
It is a shame that Conservative Members do not seem prepared to hear the words of children carefully elicited by skilled people. I shall repeat what the children said:
it's what parents do when they hit you … only they call it a smack".
That challenges us all. I bet that is the most radical statement that has been quoted in the House so far this century.
Such statements should make the House and the Government think about the absolute nonsense of trying to define when and in which circumstances it is reasonable to hurt children, and about the absurd inconsistency of those who, rightly, rail against child abuse, bullying, domestic violence and violence crime—a subject mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—but who think it appropriate to demonstrate to children that some issues can be resolved by hitting them. There is a striking peculiarity about giving children—whom we generally regard as being vulnerable and requiring special consideration and protection—less protection under the law on assault than is given to adults.
Twenty-five days into the 21st century, it is truly pathetic that we are debating a measure called the Parental Authority Bill. The hon. Gentleman should have turned up in full Victorian fancy dress for his attempt to introduce legislation that is based on a 1960 judgment, that reinforces an Act of Parliament that is 67 years old, and that undermines the central concept of parental responsibility, which was introduced by the Conservative party with cross-party support in the Children Act 1989.
To many—certainly to me and perhaps to the hon. Gentleman—parenting is the best job that we shall ever have; it is also one of the hardest. However, it does not go on in isolation from the rest of the world, and it does no one—child or parent—any favours to pretend that it should. My children are now grown up, but I know that I—especially when I was a young parent—would have benefited from the sort of assistance set out in "Supporting Families", from the excellent booklets now supplied to all new parents by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and from the sort of leadership that thousands of foster carers and residential workers routinely receive—the instruction that, even in extremely difficult circumstances, physical punishment is wholly unacceptable.
There are far more productive and satisfactory ways of managing children's behaviour. There are so many occasions on which it is important that the House should


reflect public opinion that it is easy to forget that it is sometimes important to lead. Physical punishment is a counsel of despair—something that is done when we cannot think of anything else to do or when we want to relieve our frustration, not when we want to help a child to learn or develop. It is a blind alley: if the child will not back down from the confrontation, the parent either has to back off or has to hit harder and harder, because he or she has put him or herself in the position of having to win.
There are hundreds of other methods that work. Those are founded on good relationships, listening to children, communicating effectively with them, being consistent and clear about what is wanted from them, explaining why and setting clear limits for behaviour. Sanctions should be used sparingly, but, when they are used, they must be made meaningful, taking the form of time out or the withholding of a treat—a form that relates to the child, its needs and interests. Disagreements are a great opportunity to develop problem-solving or negotiating skills. Modelling good behaviour works if parents are consistent. The list of alternatives to physical punishment goes on. Finally, it always helps to be able to laugh, put disagreements behind one and look forward to another day.
There are few experts—not on the Government Benches, nor on the Opposition Benches—and no paragons. However, "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents" has missed a great opportunity to offer parents real leadership in addition to effective support. We are only at the beginning of the consultation process and, presumably, there will be a free vote at some point, so there is still time for the Government to think again. The Parental Authority Bill is completely and hopelessly misguided. The House must remember the words of the seven-year-old quoted by Save the Children:
it's what parents do when they hit you … only they call it a smack".
The hon. Member for Blaby wants to use implements to make the impact even worse. The Bill is unworthy of him and of the House. I hope that a Division will consign the Bill to the past, where it belongs.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 118.

Division No. 37]
[4 pm


AYES


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fox, Dr Liam


Beggs, Roy
Gale, Roger


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gray, James


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Grieve, Dominic


Bercow, John
Hawkins, Nick


Blunt, Crispin
Hunter, Andrew


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Luff, Peter


Brady, Graham
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Malins, Humfrey


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan, Alan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Fabricant, Michael
Oaten, Mark


Flight, Howard
Ottaway, Richard


Forsythe, Clifford
Randall, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John





Robathan, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Willis, Phil


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stunell, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Syms, Robert



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, William
Mr. Desmond Swayne and


Trend, Michael
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn.


NOES


Alexander, Douglas
Kidney, David


Allan, Richard
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashton, Joe
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Barnes, Harry
Lepper, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Levitt, Tom


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
McDonnell, John


Berry, Roger
McFall, John


Best, Harold
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Brake, Tom
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burstow, Paul
Mactaggart, Fiona


Butler, Mrs Christine
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)



Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Mudie, George


Casale, Roger
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Chaytor, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Cohen, Harry
Pickthall, Colin


Connarty, Michael
Pound, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Corbett, Robin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Corston, Jean
Prosser, Gwyn


Crausby, David
Purchase, Ken


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Quinn, Lawrie


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Rendel, David


Dalyell, Tarn
Rooney, Terry


Darvill, Keith
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Roy, Frank


Davidson, Ian
Ryan, Ms Joan


Dawson, Hilton
Sanders, Adrian


Dismore, Andrew
Sarwar, Mohammad


Dobbin, Jim
Savidge, Malcolm


Donohoe, Brian H
Sawford, Phil


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Sedgemore, Brian


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry


Fearn, Ronnie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Skinner, Dennis


Gapes, Mike
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Soley, Clive


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Gunnell, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Hepburn, Stephen
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Hinchliffe, David
Todd, Mark


Home Robertson, John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Hope, Phil
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Watts, David


Humble, Mrs Joan
White, Brian


Hurst, Alan
Winnick, David


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Wise, Audrey


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Wood, Mike


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Wray, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)



Keeble, Ms Sally
Tellers for the Noes:


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Keetch, Paul
Mr. Tony McWalter.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Electronic Communications Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I notice, as will the House, that new clause 1 has not been selected. In no way do I challenge your ruling, Madam Speaker, or ask for an explanation because, by convention, no such explanation is provided. Given that the new clause would have covered an important part of the Bill having a significant bearing on interlocking legislation between here and the European Union, I seek your confirmation that the new clause as tabled would have fallen within the long title of the Bill.

Madam Speaker: I do not usually give explanations, but it was totally beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that no precedent is set in this instance, in that the proposed new clause was not considered because there is a draft European Union directive in circulation that conflicts with it?

Madam Speaker: Order. There will be no explanation of my selection of amendments. Either the hon. Member intends to move the motion or not. Is he moving the motion?

Mr. St. Aubyn: I will be happy to move the motion, Madam Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend will be here shortly. [Laughter.] I support the motion with him.

New Clause 3

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

'When the country of origin differs from the country of destination for a service or product contracted through the medium of an electronic communication, the vendor shall fully disclose prior to binding confirmation of such contract the liability of the purchaser of such service or product for any duties, taxes or other levies arising in the country of destination; and the purchaser shall otherwise be entitled under English law to retain or reclaim from the vendor or his United Kingdom agents the amount of any such duties, taxes or other levies lawfully demanded by the tax authorities in such country of destination.'.—[Mr. St. Aubyn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This important new clause would have the effect of ensuring that taxation across borders is properly addressed by the Bill. More and more people are buying products on the internet from other countries. Where the value of a purchase is above a small threshold of about 28 ecus or £18, duty falls to be paid on it. When people buy products on the internet from a vendor in another country, their liability for duty may be made clear in the small type on the web page. Their payment by credit card, without accounting for duty, is received in the country of origin of the goods, which are then shipped.
When the goods are delivered to the purchaser in this country, a claim is made by the person making the delivery or agents of the vendor to collect the duty. At that point, duty will have been paid by the importing agent of the company in the country of origin. There is no loss of revenue to the Exchequer but there is an immense problem for those making the delivery in collecting the money from the customer in the UK.
4.15 pm
The result, according to industry sources and recent reports in the industry's specialist press, is that millions of pounds of duty is not being collected by those acting on behalf of vendors overseas. Vendors' agents are having to bear that cost and are doing so in the hope that the matter can be properly resolved. The Government have been approached on that issue, I understand, and asked whether they would consider raising the threshold below which no duty is levied. There is—in my view quite rightly—resistance to raising the threshold of about £18 because a much bigger loophole could be created and a great deal of revenue and customs duty that should be collected might be forgone. The onus is therefore on them—if they will not raise the threshold and expect that money to be collected—to ensure that people who purchase goods in this country have a proper mechanism for raising and paying that money.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. St. Aubyn: When I have explained the new clause fully. It says that a customer could not be made to pay duty unless he was made properly and clearly aware when purchasing the product that he may be liable to do so. Companies wishing to import goods to this country would find that no one would handle such an import unless he had a counter-indemnity from the supplier saying that he would recover the duty from that supplier. The onus to make it clear to customers in this country that they may be liable for duty would therefore be put back on the supplier. That seems to be the only practicable way by which the respective obligations of the supplier and the purchaser could be enforced through legislation in this country.
If the Minister has an alternative means of tackling the mischief, the House will be keen to hear it this afternoon. If she has no alternative, will she please acknowledge that there is a real problem here? If the growth of e-commerce from one country to another is predicated on the fact that purchasers do not realise that there is a hidden charge for duty, that growth will be affected. E-commerce will get a poor reputation because customers who feel, as a matter of principle, that they should pay duties when that is asked of them and not try to evade them—as is happening in some cases—will think that they have been stung.
Someone might purchase a pack of CDs at an advertised price equivalent to £30, which is a lot less than he would pay in the shops here, only to discover, when the goods come to his door, that he is liable for another £15 of duty. Clearly he would feel that the price was not quite as advertised and that he had been led up the garden path.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and the House as I have


to go up to Committee in a moment. Specifically on CDs, how would he make the new clause work in the context of music that is delivered electronically? That method of delivery is becoming increasingly prevalent and, following mergers such as those announced in the past few days, it will become even more prevalent.

Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. There are instances in which the collection of duty will be very difficult in any event. Indeed, one can imagine someone purchasing an expensive CD piece by piece to come within the £18 threshold; no single purchase would cross that threshold, which has been around for many years. I am grateful to him for showing, in another way, how the existing legislative framework is totally inadequate. The real mischief here—the real danger—is that customers will get the intelligence that buying on the net is full of risks, one of which is that they may be stung for unexpected duty. The other risk is that those who are currently building up, in the interests of a competitive market, the business of delivering these goods from one country to another will be deterred from doing so if they find that they have a mounting problem of bad debt when they pay duty to Customs and Excise and cannot recover it from the customers at that point. There are those providing the service now who are contemplating how to protect their position. They will work out ways in which they can recover the duty.
In the end, if the problem grows to become just a little more severe than it is already—and we are all predicting a massive growth in the scale of this business—it will be the Exchequer that finds it is losing out. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Government to accept the clause, accept that the principles behind it should be taken forward in another place and put, perhaps with better wording, into the body of the Bill. Alternatively, the Minister should assure the House that she understands the problems that are being raised this afternoon and come up with her own remedy in good time for another place to consider it.

Dr. Ladyman: If my recollection is accurate, on Second Reading the hon. Gentleman argued that the Bill was far too complicated and needed to be much simpler, just based on what is now clause 7. Can he enlighten us as to why he wants to put this horrendously complex and unworkable piece of legislation into this Bill, which is clearly the wrong Bill for it?

Mr. St. Aubyn: It has become evident to me that the growth of business-to-customer e-commerce will be jeopardised if a fundamental principle—that of showing that the taxation due on a purchase is clearly stated when someone makes the purchase—is not enforced at this stage; the entire business of e-commerce will rapidly be discredited. If we are passing a Bill making electronic signatures legal, we are presumably expecting that the quantity of this business will grow substantially. We do not want to see that business grow on a false premise that tax liabilities are not properly spelled out when such deals are confirmed.

Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way again. The point of commitment, if someone is buying something from abroad, will be at the point when they place their order. I can understand how the

hon. Gentleman could impose this restriction on British businesses selling abroad, but how could he impose it on foreign businesses that we are buying from?

Mr. St. Aubyn: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I did not explain the issue clearly enough. It is, I admit, by a backdoor route and by a transfer of responsibility; nevertheless, if the clause became law the onus on the vendor's agents would rapidly be transferred back on to the vendor himself or herself in the country of origin of the goods, because no one would be prepared to take goods into this country on behalf of a foreign supplier and find that they could not then collect the duty from the purchaser in this country. They would tell the vendor, "I must have a counter-indemnity for this." Otherwise, they would be very foolish. At that point the vendor would find, even though not subject to UK law, that it is very much in their interests to make sure that they properly display the liability to Customs and other levies in this country for goods purchased here. Otherwise, they will find that they, via their UK agents, become liable for the loss of revenue incurred from the failure to make clear to customers in this country a warning of what their liability will be.

Mr. Richard Allan: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's intention, which is to promote electronic commerce. But I am concerned that he is just talking about goods exchanged through electronic communications. Is he proposing a different regime for when, for example, I contract to buy a book from Amazon.com than if I write off to a bookseller in New York and ask it to send me books? Is he suggesting that electronic communications should be treated differently from the other trade, which is already going on and growing as a natural feature of the globalisation of trade?

Mr. St. Aubyn: So far as I am aware, there are no duties and levies on books, because we do not believe—at least, in our party and, I believe, in the Labour party; perhaps the Liberals are different these days—in a tax on learning. The awareness of internet trade means, of course, that the growth of conventional trade is brought along behind it, with the wind in its sails.
People who opt for conventional methods of purchase from other parts of the world—because of the less convenient means of purchase—will presumably do so because they are aware of the existence of the new clause. If it brings about an awareness of liability to tax, which is what we want it to do, it will have done its job.

Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Is not the purpose of the new clause to avoid stealth taxes, and is it not that fact that has raised the hackles of the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)?

Mr. St. Aubyn: As always, my hon. Friend has introduced an entirely new dimension to the debate. I think that, in this instance, the customs duty that the authorities seek to collect from the purchaser in this country could be described as another stealth tax.
If the Bill is enacted without the protection of new clause 3 or a similar provision with the same good intention, many people in this country may conclude that


the problem with buying through the internet is that the buyer is caught by a stealth tax. In this case the stealth tax is a customs duty, but time and again we see that international vendors do not make clear on the web page the liability of the customers in this country whom they are asking to buy from them.
Given the technology that is available nowadays, it would be very simple to display a warning sign conveying to customers whose purchases amount to more than £18, or 28 ecu, that they will be liable for a tax. In fact, it would not be all that difficult for vendors to include a calculation of the tax: it would be good customer service, although the new clause does not require it. The law should not be too specific, and I know that we are all keen for the Bill to be technology-neutral, but citizens of this country have a fundamental right to be aware of the taxes for which they are liable.
Passing a burden or liability on to the vendor's agents deals with the need for the vendor to display the message. In other instances in which business is done outside this country—there are instances in income and capital gains tax legislation—United Kingdom agents of overseas operators are made liable for taxation. I think the Minister, as a former Treasury Minister, will confirm that UK agents collecting rent for overseas property owners whose property is in this country may be made liable for the tax on that rent if it is not otherwise collected.
Under this and earlier Governments, we have already endorsed the clear principle that agents of overseas operators may be made liable, in the full expectation that they will then require a counter-indemnity from their overseas counter party. We have enabled our legislation to extend further than United Kingdom citizens when the actions of overseas agents and operators affect those citizens. I am sure that Labour Members who speak today will confirm that they too are concerned about the mischief that the new clause seeks to correct. They may feel that it contains imperfections, and I would be the first to admit, as a Back Bencher without the departmental resources that the Minister has to hand, that it could be improved; but I ask them, as I have asked the Minister, to recognise the existence of that mischief and the need to deal with it before we spur the growth of this market—which the Bill will do—on the false premise that people can be sold goods without being shown the tax for which they are liable.

Mr. Duncan: The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) for moving the new clause because it highlights an area of growing complication. The hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) have compared physical delivery of a product with what can now happen over the internet: supply of goods—perhaps sound or data—that have a commercial value, but are not wrapped or posted and so do not go through or over a border that is policed normally. Furthermore, the growth of the internet will lead to many more cross-border purchases between an individual and a company, as distinct from an individual buying from a local company that itself will enter a cross-border transaction.
The new clause is essentially an attempt to introduce some consumer protection into e-commerce. Domestically, we either have an all-inclusive price—a price plus VAT—or a price saying that VAT has to be added. In commercial practice throughout the world—for example, well-established habits in shipping—something is sold either free on board, or with carriage, insurance and freight all to be paid for. Now we see the rise of a different category of trade that will not have the same clarity as conventional patterns of trade. Cross-border pricing habits and the contractual terms that govern them will not have the openness and clarity of traditional patterns.
Therefore, the new clause is an attempt to introduce some clarity into e-commerce for the protection of the consumer. It calls for the consumer to be given the whole picture, wherever possible, before he is asked to enter a contract.
Given the issues that I have explained, I ask the Minister to explain what her policy is in those difficult areas. I have broad sympathy with her as she tries to unravel the problem and to get to grips with it. None the less, the new clause highlights the problem and presents to the Minister a call for a clear explanation, so that I, the House and consumers will know where they stand in law.

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I was surprised to hear the explanation by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) of the new clause. I had thought that Conservative Members were against imposing new burdens on business, but the new clause would impose appalling burdens on British business, without securing any significant gains for British consumers.
The new clause deals with who should be responsible for knowing what taxes are due in cross border e-commerce trade. The problem is that, in addition to imposing burdens on British companies that want to use electronic commerce to export their products and services, the new clause would severely damage the chances of achieving our objective of making the UK the best place in the world for commerce.
As has been pointed out, the new clause discriminates against electronic commerce because it requires a vendor to disclose the purchaser's liability for tax before a contract is finalised and, if that is not done, the vendor or his agent to become liable for any undisclosed taxes. Even if that principle were sound—it goes too far—surely it should apply to all business, not only to business that is contracted through the medium of an electronic communication.
The Bill seeks to get rid of barriers in existing law that discriminate against new technologies. We are not trying to impose new barriers that will inhibit the growth of electronic commerce.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Why is it such a huge burden on a vendor who uses the electronic medium to ensure that, when someone buys something, a message splashes up on the screen saying, "Do you realise that you are liable for customs duty on this purchase? Please click on the box yes or no before you proceed." With electronic commerce, that is a light burden for any vendor. It is precisely why


it is appropriate for the new clause to apply to electronic commerce. It would be harder to ensure that that sequence of questions was asked in a more conventional format.

Ms Hewitt: I find that point wholly unconvincing. If the hon. Gentleman's principle were sound, someone selling by mail order or by telephone to a consumer in another country would be equally able to say, in large letters, "You need to be aware as a consumer that you may be liable for taxes in your own country."

Mr. St. Aubyn: Is the Minister suggesting that it is a bad idea to ask businesses to expose to customers their liability to tax?

Ms Hewitt: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am coming to precisely that point.
The issue we are considering is whether we should require vendors to disclose to a purchaser in a foreign country their liability to tax in their own country. The balance that we have to strike is between giving adequate information to consumers and imposing the burden on a vendor of having to warn customers in detail of the tax liabilities that they may face in their own countries under local rules.
The European Union's distance selling directive will require that, prior to the conclusion of any distance contract, the consumer has to be provided with, among other things, the price of the goods or services, including all taxes and, where appropriate, delivery costs. Once that directive is in force, it will apply the underlying objective, which I think that the hon. Gentleman seeks to enforce, to all consumer contracts within the European Union. It will apply, in other words, to all contracts involving distance-selling means, not simply those that are concluded by means of electronic communication, as the hon. Gentleman is proposing. I think that that is absolutely right and that it goes far enough.
The problem with new clause 3 is that it goes well beyond the scope of the distance selling directive, which is confined to the member states of the European Union, and imposes on United Kingdom vendors the requirement to explain to foreign customers outside the European Union the tax liabilities of those customers in their own country. Customers, particularly business customers from non-European Union countries, will normally be aware of their tax liabilities.
In the European Union context, we are balancing the imposition of burdens on United Kingdom vendors selling to consumers in other European Union member states against the protection that we can rightly gain for British consumers when buying from vendors elsewhere in the European Union. New clause 3 would impose burdens on British businesses that are seeking to sell to consumers outside the European Union without in practice obtaining any new benefits for British consumers themselves.
We want businesses to trade online. We want to get a million small and medium businesses trading online by no later than 2002 because of the enormous competitive advantage that they could gain. However, we do not want to require any British business that is trading online to be an expert on the value added tax, sales tax and duty laws in any non-European Union country that they might sell to, and then to make them liable if they get it wrong. Such

a requirement would be a quite extraordinary burden on our businesses and would hardly encourage the development of electronic commerce.

Mr. St. Aubyn: As the Minister well knows, I am not proposing that. However, will she explain why the requirement would be a burden only on United Kingdom vendors, and why the provisions of the new clause would not apply, for example, to a United States supplier to a United Kingdom consumer? A US supplier, because of the liability transferred from its UK agent, would have to disclose the UK purchaser's tax liability, which would be a benefit for the UK purchaser.

Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the effect of his own amendment. The provisions of new clause 3 would bite on British business. When this Parliament makes laws, those laws apply to those who are within our jurisdiction. We cannot pass a law that would require vendors in, for example, the United States—where the price in shops is exclusive of sales tax, and it is only when paying at the till that one discovers the amount of sales tax—who wish to sell to British consumers to start to price inclusively, as we tend to do in the UK. It would be impractical to try to impose that liability by means of the device of the vendor's agent. Many vendors in other countries simply would not bother to sell to British consumers.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton about the need for transparency and clarity in pricing on websites. We are trying to encourage that by supporting codes of practice that can be agreed both in the European context and beyond. That approach is better than trying to legislate in a complex manner that would not achieve the desired ends.

Mr. Allan: The Minister argues that one cannot expect every website in the world to be programmed with the duty rates for every country from Argentina to Uzbekistan, but are the codes of practice that she mentioned similar to those that exist already? They require websites to make it clear that consumers are liable to taxes in their own countries. How far has the Minister got towards establishing agreement at a global level that such warnings should be available?

Ms Hewitt: That is precisely what we are aiming to achieve, through the distance-selling directive in the European Union and, more generally, through the working party of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other international forums.
The hon. Member for Guildford referred to British consumers' liability for VAT and import duty on physical goods imported from outside the European Union. Such goods are liable to taxation on importation, according to their nature and value.
Exceptions exist, however: for example, music downloaded on line may be bought from America but delivered digitally through the medium of the internet. In those circumstances, it would be regarded as having been taxed in the United States.
The difficulty for British and other European businesses is that the same process does not operate the other way around. When a United Kingdom business sells online music to an American customer, it has to account for VAT


at 17.5 per cent. The European Commission is especially keen to change the law to provide a level playing field for European businesses. We expect the Commission to bring forward detailed legislative proposals by April, and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will respond to those proposals when they are published.
However, if the new clause is pressed to a Division, I shall ask Labour Members to oppose it. It would discriminate against electronic commerce and therefore inhibit it, and it would impose unnecessary and undesirable red tape on British business.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I find the Minister's reply cheap and disappointing. She tried to score some political points that were irrelevant to such a technical debate. The new clause does not require vendors to calculate purchasers' tax liability. The new clause simply states that the liability of the vendor shall be displayed
for any duties … arising in the country of destination.
It does not state that the amount has to be specified. If the warning were not displayed, the new clause would provide that the amount could not be claimed from the purchaser. That knocks the first of the Minister's arguments on the head.
The Minister referred to an EU draft directive. I was sorry to see her behave as more of a little European than an internationalist on the matter. We are talking about an international business, involving people in the United States and in other non-EU countries. The idea that EU countries can create a fortress in which e-commerce can be conducted and which will keep the Yanks out is totally naive—especially in the context of e-commerce.
I am very disappointed that the Minister chooses to wait for an EU directive. She should display more imagination and leadership in the matter. That is what we require from the Government, if this country is ever to become a centre for e-commerce.

Mr. Brian Cotter: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider the European dimension to be important? Does he agree that the single currency would make intra-Community internet trading more vibrant?

Mr. St. Aubyn: Time is short: we must not play with the hon. Gentleman's obsessions, or indulge him further.
I am most concerned that the Minister dismisses the idea that we can do anything about a US-UK internet relationship. Much internet business comes from the US and it is vital that purchasers in this country have confidence in the processes according to which such sales are conducted. I totally reject the Minister's argument that the clause has no bearing on that matter, as that is precisely the matter that the new clause addresses.
If US suppliers had to be told by their UK agents that they were liable for a tax that could not be collected from UK purchasers unless the purchasers' general liability for any such tax were clearly displayed, those UK agents would say, with one voice, that the suppliers should make that display clear on their screens. They would add that the suppliers should also furnish some form of indemnity—the system would not work without that.
In the current environment, UK business will suffer from the Government's inaction. It is in the long-term interests of UK agents to compete for the business of US

suppliers. Because of the competitive pressures and those long-term interests, they will have to bear a continuing loss of revenue. They will have to pay out duties to the Exchequer, which they will not be able to recover from UK customers because it will not have been displayed as a liability in the first place.
US companies will pocket the money, but UK consumers will feel that they only just got away without being stung. The real sufferer will be UK business, as the Government have failed to pick up the challenge that the new clause represents. I am sorry that that argument has failed to penetrate the Minister's mind. That gives me little hope for the success of her e-commerce initiatives.
In the circumstances, it would be wrong to press the new clause to a vote, but I assure the Minister that this vitally important matter will be raised again in another place ere long. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Duncan: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—

"(1A) In order to grant an approval the Secretary of State must be satisfied that that person—

(a) will comply, in providing the services in respect of which he is approved, with such technical and other requirements as may be prescribed;
(b) is a person in relation to whom such other requirements as may be prescribed are, and will continue to be, satisfied;
(c) is, and will continue to be, able and willing to comply with any requirements that the Secretary of State is proposing to impose by means of conditions of the approval; and
(d) is otherwise a fit and proper person to be approved in respect of those services.

(1B) Regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1A) may frame a requirement for the purposes of that subsection by reference to the opinion of a person specified in the regulations, or of a person chosen in a manner determined in accordance with the regulations.".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 2, line 8, after "arrangements", insert "for approval".
No. 7, in page 2, leave out lines 12 and 13.
No. 8, in page 2, leave out lines 27 to 42.
No. 9, in page 2, line 44, after "conditions", insert—
referenced above in subsection (2)(b)".
No. 10, in page 3, line 12, leave out "(3)" and insert "(1A)".

Mr. Duncan: In effect, the amendments would rewrite clause 2. They would not change the clause's meaning, but would merely put it into better legislative language. It may help the House if I explain, very briefly, the origin of the amendments.
All hon. Members will agree that deliberations on the Bill in Committee were constructive. No member of the Committee indulged in silly party politics, but everyone wanted to improve the Bill wherever possible. That followed Conservative Members' success in forcing


publication of the draft Bill over the summer, and in arguing for and securing the removal of part III of that draft Bill.
However, Conservative Members in the Committee argued their corner. The House will be grateful to the Minister for her rational approach to the debate. She said that she would examine some of the points that we made and consider some possible amendments for discussion on Report. To that end, I wrote to the Minister on 5 January, making four points which are the kernel of the amendments before the House today. She courteously wrote back to me on 17 January, essentially accepting three out of the four proposals, most of which have now been included in the Government amendments, which we shall come to later.
Amendment No. 5, however, contains a proposal that the Minister did not accept, although I think it fair to say that she sympathised with what we said in Committee. We believe that the structure of the clause is very difficult to understand. The wording is such that readers of the legislation and interpreters of the language have to dart from one part of the clause to another to get the whole picture. In Committee, we moved an amendment to delete clause 2(5), which we felt to be broad-brush and meaningless. It was an example of nonsensical language—a nightmare for plaintiffs and defendants, although lawyers will make money if ever this part of the Bill is referred to in a legal case.
In response to our amendment, the Minister said, quite reasonably, that she would look further at the wording of the subsections to see whether they could be simplified without reducing the necessary powers of the authority. Following our conversations, she advised me that parliamentary draftsmen had not come up with a solution, but maintained that our amendment did not quite achieve what we thought it would. However, I think that it does.
The amendment would rewrite the clause. Instead of its current hotch-potch structure, we have explained the hurdles that those who wish to be registered as cryptography providers have to overcome so that they can be properly understood. We have introduced a sort of "gating" procedure, whereby anyone who wishes so to be registered can achieve one objective, then another, in succession, to the point where, clearly understood by everyone involved and by anyone interpreting the law, the end game can be reached.
The order of our proposals follow a logical process. They establish what is to be proved; the required status of the applicants; the procedures to determine that status; the nature of the arrangements, including the power to impose conditions; the details of the conditions that can be imposed; the restriction on conditions that can be imposed, and the power to enforce one type of condition. They follow a logical progression so that the law, clearly understood, can be followed by anyone so applying.
I hope that, even if the Minister cannot accept the amendment, she will admit that the clause is a bit of a mess. When the parliamentary draftsmen have a little more time on their hands, perhaps they can study it again so that, between us, we can make simple and clear law that will benefit everyone.

Ms Hewitt: As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has said, we had a valuable and constructive series of discussions in Committee. I think that the Bill, which had already been significantly improved through consultation, was further improved as a result. I undertook to consider whether we could simplify the clause while preserving the necessary powers of the approvals authority.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling constructive amendments, designed to simplify the clause. They would reorder the clause and add some cross-references without changing its effect. However, whether one arrangement is clearer than another is a subjective judgment, and I doubt that parliamentary counsel would agree with the aspersions cast by the hon. Gentleman on the original drafting. I would like to consider further the way in which the amendments have been drafted, and to discuss further with parliamentary counsel whether a rearrangement of the clause, along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman, or in some other way, would help to clarify it. If we reach that conclusion, we shall table the necessary amendments in another place. I hope that, in the light of that undertaking, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Duncan: It is always unsettling when sweet reason breaks out across the Floor of the House. However, on this unique occasion, that seems to have happened. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

PROVISION OF CRYPTOGRAPHY SUPPORT SERVICES

Mr. Duncan: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(2) References in this Part to the provision of cryptography support services exclude the supply of computer hardware or software, or the right to use them, except where that supply is an integral part of cryptography support services supplied by the same provider.".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

Mr. Duncan: It would appear that the outbreak of sweet reason has hit the House once again, so the previous occasion was not unique. The amendment, once again, originated from this side of the House, and the Minister listened to the point that we were making. Our concern is that clause 6(2) is almost incomprehensible. I will not read it to the House, but anyone trying to interpret the contents of the Bill in future would have a great deal of difficulty. Amendment No. 11 would tidy up the clause and make it comprehensible.
In Committee, the Minister undertook to
consult ever-helpful parliamentary draftsmen further to discover whether the drafting of the clause could be simplified".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 December 1999; c. 54–5.]


I recognise that the group contains two Government amendments that address exactly the same point, but in a slightly different way. In addition, the Government have the benefit of the advice of parliamentary draftsmen and the Minister's experts—advice which Opposition Members so often lack.
When the moment comes, I may wish to withdraw my amendment, once I hear from the Minister exactly what the effect of the Government amendments will be. I expect them to be almost identical in effect to mine.

Mr. Allan: I, too, welcome the amendments, particularly Nos. 13 and 14. They deal with one of the areas in which we shared the concern of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) in Committee. Not only was the clause confusing, but its logic was reversed. As we explored the clause in Committee, we discovered that the Government intended to ensure that the Bill referred to cryptography service providers and that hardware and software regulation should not be introduced unless that was a core part of the cryptography service.
By including references to supply of hardware and software, the effect of the clause appeared to be reversed. Amendment No. 13 makes that exclusive rather than inclusive, which I think quite sensible. I shall not get into logical uses of "or" and "and", because we spent plenty of time on that in Committee.
This is a deregulatory success. Amendment No. 13 adds two words; amendment No. 14 adds nine, but removes 21. By my inclusive or exclusive mathematics, I calculate that we have taken 10 words out of the Bill, which is a success in itself. However, I invite the Minister to consider whether she can go further and take out another six words. I refer to the phrase at the end of clause 6(2):
not consisting in such a supply.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 will get the clause broadly right; they make a lot of sense. But I query whether that phrase, hanging on at the end of the sentence, is really necessary. I invite the Minister to ensure that the Bill eventually has as few words as possible so that lawyers can make as little money as possible arguing about the significance of those that it does contain.

Ms Hewitt: As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said in moving his amendment, we had another very useful debate in Committee on subsection (2). As both he and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) have indicated, there was agreement across the Committee about the intention of the original clause. I said that I would reconsider the wording and have, as a result, come forward with amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
Our amendments reinforce and clarify the purpose of the subsection, which is to explain that the supply of software and hardware is not included within the meaning of the cryptographic support service, unless the supply of the hardware or software is integral to the provision of the service. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton pointed out, the new wording proposed in the two Government amendments significantly and helpfully clarifies that extremely important subsection.
5 pm
The hon. Member for Hallam asked why we cannot simply drop from the end of the subsection the words
not consisting in such a supply".
I asked my officials the same question when I was considering the amendments. If we abandoned those words, the problem is that we would end up with a completely circular definition of cryptography support services.
I offer the House the helpful example that was provided for me by my officials—it relates to chocolates. If I were to say that references to the provision of chocolates do not include references to the supply of coffee creams, except where that is integral to the provision of the chocolates not consisting in such a supply, coffee creams would not be included unless they were supplied as part of a wider range. That is what we are doing in the measure, but if those crucial words at the end of subsection (2) were omitted, the lawyers would go round in circles.
The clause, as redrafted by the two Government amendments, achieves its purpose in the simplest and most elegant form and with the fewest possible words. In the light of that explanation, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton will want to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Duncan: I have been thinking about lots of things, but as the Minister has mentioned chocolates, perhaps, one day, I shall deliver her a box of chocolates by dramatically swinging through a window—as in the famous advert.
The Minister's support, in principle, for our proposals is right. We accept that the Government's amendments meet the requirements set out in our amendment, and we support the Government' s amendments. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 13, in page 6, line 2, after "service" insert "do not".
No. 14, in page 6, line 3, leave out from "hardware" to "of in line 4 and insert—
except where the supply is integral to the provision".—[Ms Hewitt.]

Clause 7

ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND RELATED CERTIFICATES

Ms Hewitt: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 34, leave out "certified either" and insert—
made a statement confirming that".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Ms Hewitt: During the second sitting of the Standing Committee, on 14 December, I indicated to hon. Members that, with the help of parliamentary counsel, I would re-examine the drafting of subsection (3). I have done so and thus have pleasure in introducing amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
In Committee, the debate on this subsection focused on the certification process, under which, in public key cryptography, the public key of an individual is certified as belonging to him or her. The debate also touched on the language that was used in the subsection, especially the use of the word "certified". The amendments will help to clarify both those matters.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to replace the words "certified either" with the phrase
made a statement confirming that".
That phrase is slightly longer, but will make it clear that we are talking about what a person will want to establish, rather than about a specific technical process. By avoiding the use of the word "certified", we shall avoid the confusion, which we came across in Committee, between the IT industry's use of the words "certified" and "certificate", and the legal, or parliamentary draftsman's, use of the words.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 address the other issue raised in Committee in amendment No. 51—whether evidence of the certification of a public key was admissible under clause 7. The wording in the new amendments will put the matter beyond doubt. Amendment No. 2 specifically includes the verification of the signature in those matters deemed to be admissible under subsection (3)(b). That verification is, of course, performed by the public key.
Amendment No. 3 makes it clear that any one of those processes or procedures is admissible in its own right, as well as when it is combined with other facts. I hope that that explanation is entirely comprehensible to Opposition Members; I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Duncan: Once again, the Government amendments support the amendments that we tabled in Committee, about which I wrote to the Minister on 5 January. As she rightly points out, the main concern arises from the fact that, as we confront new technology and try to embody in law provisions that relate to it, we run out of accurate words to describe what the legislation is supposed to mean. As the reports of the Standing Committee show, our concern is that the word "certified" became ambiguous as it was used through the Bill, and hence legally unclear.
We wanted an alternative phrase or verb to replace the word "certified" in the clause so that that ambiguity could be removed. At one point, I discussed with the Minister the use of the word "validated". However, I accept that the phrasing of the amendments covers what we meant by "validated", or the meaning that we wanted to be attributed to "certified". We support the amendment; it achieves what we asked the Minister for. I hope that it will receive the support of both sides of the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 2, in page 6, line 36, leave out
the means of producing or communicating
and insert—
a means of producing, communicating or verifying".
No. 3, in page 6, line 38, leave out "as" and insert—
is (either alone or in combination with other factors)".—[Ms Hewitt.]

Clause 13

PROHIBITION ON KEY ESCROW REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Duncan: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 13, line 37, leave out—
deposit a key for electronic data with
and insert
render electronic data intelligible to the satisfaction of".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 4.

Mr. Duncan: The amendments are crucial because of the debate that surrounded the origin of the Bill and the concerns of all those in the industry as to what the measure might entail. Those Members familiar with all the issues will know that, as people began to wrestle with the ramifications of e-trade and the revolution that is going on, they were anxious that the Government might demand that the key to the de-encryption of material be deposited with a third party.
The debate on key escrow raged for some time. Foremost among the original proponents of key escrow was my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). However, the debate has moved on—as has my hon. Friend, who has changed his mind because we have learned much more about the matter. All credit is due to him for that.
It was thus crucial that key escrow should not be included in the Bill. There would be no power for the Government, or for some agency, to demand that the key—as between public and private—for the de-encryption of material could be deposited with a third party. However, we were concerned that key escrow might be introduced through the back door.
We can accept that if someone is transmitting data—for example, a taxpayer who is filling in his tax return and sending it to the Inland Revenue—there must be some provision, and a reasonable expectation, that the data he is sending should be intelligible to the recipient. In the case of private information, some of that data might be encrypted—for good reasons. It would not be acceptable for the sender of that information to say, "I have encrypted the information, but don't worry it's all there. It's tough if all you get on your screen is hieroglyphics that you can't read—it's up to you to work out how to turn it into proper data, which can be read by anyone in the normal way." Therefore I quite understand that this part of the Bill places an obligation on the sender of information to send it in a form that can be properly deciphered and understood by the recipient; otherwise, staff at the Inland Revenue will find that everyone sends them hieroglyphics and says, "I am sure you could decipher it, if only you tried."
However, the wording of clause 13(2)(b) looked a bit dodgy to us. It looked as though a power might suddenly be introduced, on the sly, enabling the Government to demand the deposit of a key. I accept that, if the information is intelligible to the recipient, they effectively have the key already. I also accept that, if they require, and can reasonably require, that information to be intelligible, if the key cannot be given they should be given a power to render that information intelligible. Therefore, I seek from the Minister an assurance that this


is not key escrow through the back door—that the powers are very limited, and are confined to a reasonable process by which the receiver of information can establish the means of reading or deciphering the information that is being sent.
We were worried that subsection (2)(b) was too broadly phrased, so the group of amendments before us contains one amendment that I have moved—I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says in response about the scope of these powers and obligations—and one tabled by the Minister, which achieves what we were asking for in subsection (2)(b).
Everyone accepts that key escrow—the obligation to give to a third party the key to the deciphering of material—should not, and must not, be a power in the Bill. Therefore, I seek from the Minister an explanation of the meaning of the clause as it stands, and of Government amendment No. 4. We accept her amendment, but before deciding whether to withdraw ours, we are interested to hear what she has to say about the status of key escrow within the scope of the Bill.

Ms Hewitt: It will help if, before I address Government amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 12, I briefly remind the House of the reasoning that gave rise to clause 13, and especially subsection (2). Clause 13 puts into effect the policy that the Prime Minister has stated, with which the hon. Gentleman agrees—that
no persons will directly or indirectly be required to store their encryption keys with a third party".
Those are words that the Prime Minister used in Cambridge in September, when he launched the performance and innovation unit report on electronic commerce. We have honoured those words. As a consequence, we introduced a specific clause to the Bill. I believe that the clause has been welcomed both in the House and by business at large.
The clause places a restriction on any conditions of an approval that might be made under part I, or regulations or orders made under any powers in any part of the Bill. No one can be required to deposit any encryption key—that protects the confidentiality of their information—with a third party. A key refers here to anything relating to electronic data which allows access to electronic data, such as a password, or allows the electronic data to be decrypted, such as a private key.
The clause not only rules out a requirement for the physical deposit of a key, but prohibits a requirement for anything to be done that would have the effect of making a key available to another person. That would include the imposition of any key storage technology, which would allow someone else to recreate or gain access to one's key.
Two special cases are outlined in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b). They do not in any way limit the prohibition on key escrow, but they do make it clear that that prohibition does not preclude two common-sense requirements.
5.15 pm
Clause 13(2)(b) does not reintroduce key escrow. Instead, it addresses the need to be able to insist on some alternative to key escrow, so that important information

that has been encrypted remains accessible, even if the key is lost. It does so because orders made under clause 8 will enable information to be stored electronically, and we need to consider what requirements could be made for people to store information where they had opted not to store their encryption keys with another person.

Mr. Duncan: Who does the Minister envisage might be able to take advantage of that power under the order? Will it only be public bodies, or agencies of Government, or might it also be private corporations?

Ms Hewitt: We are dealing with situations that might arise, for instance, under orders made under clause 8, and in most cases those orders will, I think, concern other public bodies. However, let us take the situation where there is a statutory requirement to retain important records, such as records of rail safety or of nuclear power stations. If the order made under clause 8 would enable that information, where there is a statutory requirement to keep it, to be kept electronically, one must provide for the possibility that, in years to come, the key that would enable that information to be accessed and rendered intelligible would be lost. The computer that held the key might be destroyed, or the only individual who had the copy of the key might die.
Under clause 13, we have prohibited the imposition, in a clause 8 order, of any requirement that the key to those data be stored with a third party. However, if the holder of the information does not choose to store the key with a third party, the clause 8 order can require him to take other steps—such as placing a second copy of the information in plain text in a bank vault. Some other security measure not involving mandatory key escrow would have to be taken, to protect future access to important data that had been encrypted. That is the point of clause 13(2)(b).
Amendment No. 4 is a Government amendment that I tabled in order to meet the undertakings that I gave during the fourth sitting of the Committee, on 16 December. The amendment means that the arrangements permitted by clause 13(2)(b) relate to the information represented by the data rather than the data themselves. In other words, the requirement could be met by storing a paper copy of that information, or perhaps storing the information in a readable form on a disk, locked in a safe. In other words, there would be a range of alternatives to key escrow, from which the person holding the information could choose, in order to protect against the loss of a key or that key's becoming unusable.
The amendment also confines the arrangements about accessibility to records that are provided for under a statute or subordinate legislation. That would include a paper record specified under other legislation, or electronic records covered by an order made under clause 8. It does not cover circumstances where there may be provisions about communicating data but no provision about keeping a record.
I take the opportunity to clarify a related point, raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). He asked whether clause 8 could be used to impose electronic storage requirements where there was no current paper storage requirement. The answer is yes. That is reasonable because, as circumstances and processes change, it may well be sensible for people to be


required to store electronic records where, in the past, there was a general understanding, but not necessarily a specific requirement, that they should store paper records. The Bill will afford flexibility, as people become accustomed to the electronic way of doing business.
I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that amendment No. 12—although well intentioned—is unnecessary because the existing text addresses a perfectly common-sense need in a satisfactory way. Clause 13(2)(a) would allow an order under clause 8 to require the deposit of a key with the intended recipient of an electronic communication. That is the crucial point. It is only the intended recipient who must have the key. In other words, we are not dealing with key escrow which, by definition, involves giving a key to a third party.
As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has said, if information were supplied in an encrypted and unintelligible form so that the intended recipient—the Inland Revenue or some other Government Department, for example—did not understand it, the communication, for all practical purposes, would have been frustrated, even though technically the individual might argue that the statutory requirement to provide the information might have been fulfilled.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may want to provide that owners of abattoirs could communicate with the Ministry electronically. Because of the sensitivity of the information to be disclosed and the importance of the identity of the sender, the Ministry might insist that such communications were effected using a particular type of technology—perhaps the abattoir owner would use a smart card, or some hardware token. That might have the effect, or purpose, of transferring the encryption key on the smart card for those messages to the Ministry, so that the information could be read. Clearly, it would be odd if the Bill were not to allow such technology to be specified.
I assure the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that this is not key escrow. There is nothing sinister behind this measure. It is for the protection of the citizen that technologies sometimes may be specified in a clause 8 order that are sufficiently secure to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the information being communicated. The technology might involve encryption mechanisms where encryption keys—sometimes referred to as session keys—are shared between the counter-parties.
Amendment No. 12 would have a similar effect. Since the intended recipient would need to be satisfied about how he was to render the data intelligible, the clause 8 order would have to address that need. It still would be possible to require that a person used a particular technology or went through a particular process; therefore the requirement might well be met in the most obvious way by the deposit of an encryption key with the intended recipient.
I know that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton wants to ensure that the drafting of the Bill is as simple as possible. However, in this case, the existing drafting is clearer than his amendment. On the basis of that

explanation and my assurances on mandatory key escrow, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to the Minister for her assurances, and I agree that the key words in the Bill are "intended recipient". On the basis of her assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 4, in page 13, line 42, leave out "of making the data" and insert—
that the information contained in a record kept in pursuance of any provision made by or under any enactment or subordinate legislation becomes".—[Ms Hewitt.]
Order for Third Reading read.

Ms Hewitt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill will help make the UK the best place in the world for e-commerce, and puts in place the right legal framework. It is fitting that this modernising Bill should be one of the first new laws of the 21st century. Just as this country led the world in the first industrial revolution, we are determined that we will be winners in the new knowledge-driven economy.
The Bill will lay sound foundations for Britain to become a dynamic, knowledge-based economy. Bill Gates described the Bill as "the model for Europe". We plan, through the Bill, to be one of the first countries to implement the EU electronic signature directive, so that British firms can benefit from the emerging online single market. A few days ago, Intel announced a %150 million investment to establish a major server farm in the Thames valley to meet the growing need for internet access across Europe. That and many other such inward investments are confirming the UK's position as Europe's e-commerce hub.
The Bill is the result of an extensive process of consultation with business and the IT industry.

Mr. Duncan: And us.

Ms Hewitt: There was some help on points of detail from the Opposition—particularly in Committee.
The Government have made extensive changes to the policy inherited from the last Administration. This process of widespread consultation has resulted in a genuine partnership in this area between Government and industry. I hope to see many of the Bill's objectives being achieved by self-regulation, so that we will not need to commence part I.
Part I is designed to build confidence in those offering cryptography services. Those services allow people to verify who has sent an electronic communication, or to keep commercial information or credit card details secret. The widespread availability of high-quality services to the public and to business will be crucial in building people's trust in doing business online, and allaying many people's fears of the new medium.
I am working with the Alliance for Electronic Business, which has drawn up a self-regulatory approval scheme—known as the T scheme—that is designed to ensure minimum standards of quality and service. Our strong preference is for self-regulation, with the statutory powers in part I held in reserve in case self-regulation fails to deliver. I am confident that, if the Alliance for Electronic Business delivers what it is currently planning to deliver, we will not need to commence part 1. That is why these powers are subject to a sunset clause and will lapse if not used within five years.
The Bill will allow people to place greater reliance on electronic signatures by making such signatures, and the processes through which they are created and certified, admissible as evidence in court. Clause 7 will enable the vast majority of contracts, where there is no specific statutory requirement as to their form, to be carried out electronically.
There are many other cases—estimated to be as many as 40,000—often involving dealings with Government, where there are specific legal barriers to doing things electronically. Clause 8 will give the Government the power to sweep away the obstacles in existing laws that insist on the use of paper, postage and formalities such as sealing wherever it makes sense to do so, and to give people the electronic option. The paper option will remain for those who want it, but increasingly, people and businesses will want to take advantage of the speed and flexibility that electronic communication offers. We have set targets for delivering Government services online, and I have deposited a memorandum in the Library, giving more detail on how we intend to use this power.
Finally, the Bill will improve the procedures for modifying telecommunications licences, which are increasingly outdated in a highly competitive marketplace.
The Bill will modernise our legislative framework, so that the law can adapt flexibly to the extraordinary new opportunities that are opening up with electronic commerce. It is an enabling Bill which ensures that the law does not get in the way of new technology and new business. It is a Bill that has the overwhelming support of business, and does not divide us in the House, to which I commend it.

Mr. Duncan: We have always supported the principle of the Bill—in particular, the introduction of a proper framework of law for electronic signatures. Those of us who understand business are ready champions of the development of e-commerce. The Minister will admit that we have helped things on their way.
There are issues and uncertainties which will need to be addressed, and this is not the end of the matter. As we look to EU directives, there will be many complicated areas to be studied and legislated upon, and cases to complement the Bill before us today. As the House knows, we do not want part I ever to be invoked. We would rather not have seen it in the Bill, because we want a regime of voluntary control to be introduced.
I am aware that the Government want this to be the first Bill to receive Royal Assent in the new millennium. Thanks to us and the Minister, it will be. We forced its publication in draft form in the summer and, following the summer recess, we forced the removal of half its pages to make it smaller and better. We have been constructive throughout and are pleased to share in its improvement and in its progress. No single party can claim credit for the Bill. We are pleased to support it.

Mr. Cotter: We, too, welcome the Bill and the prospect of its early implementation. Unlike the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), I do not promise the Minister a box of chocolates, but perhaps a box of All Sorts with a few comments and plaudits here and there.
Many people, including Liberal Democrats, have welcomed the concept of a light-touch Bill and we congratulate the Government on introducing one. However, along with others, I reiterate a concern that was expressed in Committee. When the Home Office makes its input into electronic communications, I hope that the Minister will, as she and the Department of Trade and Industry have promised, use a light touch rather than the heavy hand of bureaucracy.
As with other Bills, the question of impact assessment has arisen, and the Minister will know that I am concerned about that. The matter was touched on in Committee when indicative costings were provided for the possible arrangements under part I. I do not want to argue strongly about the accuracy of the costs—after all, they were called indicative costs. For example, a figure of £30,000 or £50,000 was given for a medium-sized company. However, as I said in another debate, there is a feeling of dissatisfaction about impact assessments in this and other Bills. I am sure that we shall be interested to hear from the Alliance for Electronic Business, which will soon provide some costs. I should like to know when that will be.
An important point was raised about part II. Departments need to examine outdated definitions, such as the words "writing or signature". On Second Reading and in Committee, it emerged that, as the Bill stands, it is up to individual Departments to update their own legislation as they see fit. That may lead to inconsistencies and confusion, so perhaps the Government should be more proactive. The Department of Trade and Industry should issue time targets and templates to ensure that Departments do what is required.
I know that the Minister will consider it her duty to prod colleagues and generally to promote what the Bill stands for with all Departments. However, I appreciate that she is aware of the many problems that may be faced in order making under the Bill.
Social exclusion is another important issue. The Government have stated that they are concerned to ensure that there is the widest possible access to the technologies. I applaud it when the Minister refers to IT for All, information and communication technologies learning centres, and other schemes. However, Liberal Democrats, like everyone else, are considering a changing scenario, with digital and other means being developed.
I, like others, have heard about the Government initiative for the provision of low-cost computers for low-income families. How is that scheme going? Although the Minister may not be able to answer this afternoon—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, on Third Reading, he is limited to discussing the contents of the Bill. Even though he may think that other issues are connected with the Bill, he cannot raise them. He must talk about what is in the Bill.

Mr. Cotter: I stand corrected—thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In conclusion, the Bill is important to ensure that we as a country address the issues of e-commerce. The Minister is aware of the points that I have made and other issues might be raised on another occasion. I hope that we can advance together to make the climate suitable for business—and small business, in particular—to conduct its affairs.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I too wish the Bill well and congratulate the Minister on her handling of it. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) ably assisted the Bill to reach this stage when he encouraged the removal of the inappropriate clauses that were originally in it.
I express the wish that, in another place, some of the issues that have been debated and the two new clauses that could not be considered today will be taken up. If the Bill is to succeed, it must deal with the tax implications of cross-border trade. In its wider remit, it will not succeed unless that is done even if the undertakings that the Minister has given are taken on board by her colleagues in the Treasury and are dealt with in the next Finance Bill. Nor will it succeed in its objective of broadening e-commerce if the law of contract and the state in which the law applies have not been clarified.
We have supported the Minister so much on the Bill because we congratulate her on her fights with the Lord Chancellor's Department and with the finance team on the issue of which country's law should apply to contracts. We are concerned by the passage of the Brussels convention and we urge her to stop any suggestion that it should apply to e-commerce. We are also worried by the idea that the country of destination should be invoked in the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Therefore, with her colleagues in other Departments, we hope that she will consider the implications of trying to change the way in which the law is applied. We believe that, almost without exception, the country of origin should be the basis on which cross-border trade is regulated. If we adopt that stance, we should do so as the United Kingdom legislature and not by following the lead from Brussels and Europe.
We did not become the financial centre of Europe by following the lead from Brussels. We did that by following our own lead—deciding what we thought was best for the financial services industry. It is only by following our own sense of what is best for the e-commerce industry that we shall create the centre for e-commerce in Europe to which we all aspire.
Before the Bill reaches the Lords, the Minister should consider adopting unilaterally the principle behind new clause 2. A report to the Select Committee by the Minister every year would do much to enhance her role and her negotiating power with other Departments. She would be able to tell them that she has to come to the House to defend the decisions and explain why, if they get it wrong, it will be to the detriment of the regulation of cryptography support services. She would be able to explain why new tax burdens, such as IR35, and new regulatory burdens, such as the temp-to-perm rules for temporary staff employment agencies, would add to the cost of developing e-commerce in this country. I know that that is an argument that the Minister supports and I hope that she wins it with her colleagues in the Government.
That principle would also act as a spur to other Departments to implement the terms of the Bill when they try to reform and update other legislation. We were told that 40,000 pieces of legislation need updating to incorporate electronic signatures. However, there are no teeth in the Bill to ensure that the Minister's colleagues do their job to ensure that e-commerce can march ahead as fast as we all want it to.

Mr. Allan: First, I congratulate the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce on having accepted many of the amendments tabled in Committee. That Committee was one of the more useful that I have attended: there was genuine dialogue between both sides and Government Back Benchers chipped in—all too often that does not happen. In addition, we managed to create a relatively jargon-free environment. As a result, we have a clearer Bill at the end of the process than we had at the start of it.
It has emerged clearly from Committee and Report that the legislative framework surrounding electronic communications is changing rapidly. The Bill has been referred to as the first Government legislation of the new millennium, but I wonder whether such issues will in future be dealt with by other means. For example, the Minister has referred to international agreements on taxation, which will probably be well outwith the powers of the UK Parliament. I should be interested to learn more about that dimension in the context of e-commerce and electronic communications.
The Bill specifically covers the subject of industry self-regulation. The Minister referred to the T scheme, which will provide an interesting template for future progress. In Committee, it became apparent that industry self-regulation might be the only mechanism that can respond sufficiently quickly and with sufficient technical ability to achieve the objectives that we have set out.
Finally, I repeat a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). There are now two Home Office Ministers on the Treasury Bench—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Only one.

Mr. Allan: Sorry—the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, used to be a Home Office Minister.
The Liberal Democrats are concerned that, although the Bill represents one step forward, Home Office legislation to be considered later in the Session might represent a couple of steps in another direction. Crooks have always used whatever form of communication they can get their hands on, but we must ensure that we do not cut off our nose to spite our face and start blaming their medium of communication for the fact that crooks exist.
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce wants to enhance e-commerce and does not want unnecessary restrictions imposed on it or business scared away by other domestic requirements, even those that are, quite properly, designed to further law and order. I am sure that she will enter future negotiations in that spirit, so that Britain becomes the place where server farms—a sort of farm that does not normally require subsidy—become one of this country's main import and domestic earnings providers.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Disqualifications Bill

Considered in Committee.

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1(1)(E) OF THE DISQUALIFICATION ACTS

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert—
'Subject to section (Commencement of Act to be conditional on progress in implementing decommissioning),'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 1, line 9, after `Ireland)', add—
' provided that, in respect of Ireland, a person who is or has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who has not disavowed terrorism within the meaning given to that expression by that Act before taking his or her seat in the said House or Assembly shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly'.
No. 1, in page 1, line 9, at end add—
'(2A) This section shall come into force on a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall not make such an order unless he has previously laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement in relation to the Belfast Agreement (Cm 3883), stating that in his opinion and in the opinion of all parties to that Agreement all aspects of the Agreement have been implemented.
(2B) No order shall be made under subsection (2A) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
New clause 1—Commencement of Act to be conditional on progress in implementing decommissioning—
'This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; but no such order shall be made until the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Norther Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 is satisfied that there has been substantial progress in implementing the commitments made in the Decommissioning section of the Belfast Agreement (Command Paper 3883).'.

Mr. MacKay: I have to say, Sir Alan, that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I deeply regret that the Committee of the whole House is to discuss the Bill this afternoon. You will recall that, only yesterday, there was a robust debate on Second Reading. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had to respond to many interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House and many hon. Members that expressed concern or asked questions about certain aspects of the Bill. With his usual courtesy, he was good enough to say that he would reflect on the observations made. I have to say, with the greatest respect to the Under-Secretary, that I believe that he and hon. Members have had insufficient time to do that.
The only occasions in my recollection—and, perhaps, yours, Sir Alan—on which we have had Second Reading followed immediately by Committee, Report and Third Reading on the Floor of the House have been when there


is urgent, emergency legislation to be passed. With the best will in the world, it is not possible to describe the Bill as urgent, or even as important. It is a deeply irrelevant little Bill, for which few people asked. The Under-Secretary failed to tell us yesterday who had asked for it; and while spending four days in Northern Ireland last week, I failed to find anyone who is the slightest bit interested in the Bill or wants it to be passed. Despite that, the Government, in a ham-fisted manner that shows great contempt for you, Sir, and for the House, have set the Committee stage for today.
You, Sir Alan, will have noticed that the amendment paper contains amendments that were tabled only yesterday. We have not had time to reflect on those amendments, let alone on the many points raised on Second Reading. I ask the Under-Secretary even at this late hour to withdraw the Committee stage until we have had adequate time to reflect, which is what normally happens. At the very least, he should explain why the Bill is an urgent, emergency measure that must be passed quickly. Perhaps he will intervene on me, but if he is not prepared to do so, we will have to assume that the Bill is not urgent, emergency legislation and that the procedures of the House are being abused.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): rose—

Mr. MacKay: I give way to the Minister.

Mr. Howarth: I am sorry—I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had finished his speech.

Mr. MacKay: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is entitled to make some prefatory remarks before speaking to the amendment, but I advise him to move directly to the subject of the amendment. The fact that we are having Committee stage now is not a matter for me. I believe that Madam Speaker ruled earlier today that it is a matter for the usual channels.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Can you guide members of the Committee on how to proceed with considering the outcome of Committee stage and therefore the possibility of tabling of amendments on Report, before the House proceeds to Third Reading? Will you give us reassurance—so far as it lies within your powers to do so—that the Bill will not proceed beyond Committee stage today? Members of the Committee will want to reflect in the usual way and decide on what action to take as a result of Committee proceedings before we move to Report.

The Chairman: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I am inclined to take a tolerant attitude toward manuscript amendments, if they are tabled. However, I ask the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee to recognise that we are considering a three-clause Bill that is fairly tightly drawn. My discretion in the matter of amendments being in order might be somewhat constricted. Within the constraints of the difficult and tight time scale with which I have been

presented, I have done my best to be as generous as possible about when amendments are tabled and as flexible as I can be in the selection of amendments. We should now proceed to consider the substance of the Bill.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. Will you give the Committee a little more information? If amendments are to be tabled for consideration on Report—you have generously indicated that that possibility is open to us—are we to take them in the normal way to the Table Office, leaving it to the Table Office to draw them to your attention; or are we to bring such amendments directly to you, in which case, how will we be told whether they are in order and have been selected for debate?

The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I should state, for the benefit of Committee, that it is usual to have a Report stage only if amendments have been made in Committee. We have not yet made any amendments, so the matter we are discussing is a contingency on a contingency.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. I hope that the Committee does not assume that the Bill is not amendable—

The Chairman: Order. I said no such thing. I merely said that what was being discussed was a contingency on a contingency. We cannot be aware in advance whether the Committee may choose in its wisdom to amend or not amend the Bill.

Mr. Fallon: I understand that, Sir Alan. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I wonder whether you could advise the Committee on the difficulty of tabling manuscript amendments if the Bill is amended in Committee and we do not have a print of it. In those circumstances, I do not see how manuscript amendments could even be brought to the Table. If we do not have a print of the Bill, on what basis can we construct amendments?

The Chairman: Should that matter arise, I think that it is possible for manuscript amendments to be brought to the Table.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan—

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was trying to make a point of order.

Mr. Ross: Further to the point that has already been raised, Sir Alan. I apologise for being a few minutes late but I was trying to check one or two things in the Public Bill Office before I came into the Chamber. If you are having some difficulty in deciding which amendments should be taken, you will appreciate—given the expertise on which you have to draw and the help that you receive—the tremendous difficulty that Back-Bench Members face in trying to table amendments. Although the Bill is narrow in content, it has wide consequences, which began to become apparent to hon. Members only


yesterday, on Second Reading. We need rather more time than we have so far had to consider the possibility of tabling amendments.

The Chairman: That is going back over a past argument which I do not think we can now repeat. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I have not had any difficulty in my selection of amendments, which is made in accordance with the normal considerations on these occasions.
I said earlier that I had tried to be flexible so as to give hon. Members the maximum time in which to submit their amendments, and to ensure that my deliberations encompassed the widest range of amendments that hon. Members wished to table.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Sir Alan, may I ask for further guidance? If the Bill were to be amended in Committee, it might be proper, even if at that stage the Government were proposing indecent haste in pressing on immediately with further stages, to suspend the House of Commons for a period to give reasonable and proper time for hon. Members to consider those proceedings before being forced by the Government to go forward with indecent haste on to Report. Might that be in your mind, Sir Alan?

The Chairman: All politicians fight shy of hypothetical situations, and I regard the one that the right hon. Gentleman has described as hypothetical. We shall deal with matters as they arise. The Committee might now move on to the substance of the matter.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Sir Alan. You will appreciate that in considering amendments we sometimes approach the same issue from slightly different points of view, and apply different standards. Would it be possible to have a vote on each amendment in a group if that were thought necessary by Back-Bench Members?

The Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the occupant of the Chair will judge that according to the content of the debate. I shall listen carefully to all that is said. I call Mr. MacKay.

Mr. MacKay: I hope that you will appreciate, Sir Alan, that I would not wish to abuse the Chair. However, there are important points that I—and other hon. Members—wish to make. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has refused to accept my offer that he should confirm that the Bill is urgent or in any way important emergency legislation.

Mr. George Howarth: rose—

Mr. MacKay: It seems that the hon. Gentleman has changed his mind; clearly he has been briefed.

Mr. Howarth: I intervene for the purpose of the record, Sir Alan. As you rightly said, this is a short three-clause Bill. It was published before Christmas. There were consultations—and certainly with the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party. I cannot

understand what the present concern is all about. There has been plenty of opportunity to debate these matters. Members were able to read the Bill and introduce any amendments that they thought suitable. Indeed, some right hon. and hon. Members have done so. I fail to see what all the fuss is about.

Mr. MacKay: I do not want to be distracted unduly, but I must respond to the Minister, who has given no reason why the Bill must proceed with such haste. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for some years—it is some time since he won his by-election—but I shall give him a brief tutorial none the less. The normal circumstance is that a Bill has its Second Reading. If that is agreed to, the Bill goes into Committee the following week at the earliest. Only urgent or emergency legislation goes into Committee the following day. I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that the Bill is neither urgent nor emergency legislation. I am asking the Minister to tell me why it is urgent.

Mr. Howarth: As I understand it, these matters were sorted out through the usual channels. I do not believe that any concerns were raised by the official Opposition about timing. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman has chosen today to raise them.

Mr. MacKay: Let me make it absolutely clear—I have checked with the Opposition Chief Whip—that there has been no consultation through the usual channels. We were merely informed. We were not asked for our views and we were not given an opportunity to consider an alternative timetable.
I shall finish my tutorial. It seems that the Minister does not fully understand the procedure. In normal circumstances, a Second Reading debate takes place one week and, at the earliest, the Bill is considered in Committee the following week. In my recollection, the only exception—I have served in the House of Commons for more than 20 years—is when we deal with emergency legislation. I do not believe that the Bill is emergency legislation. Perhaps the Minister might care to tell me why it is.

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago, I think somewhat disingenuously, that the Opposition were consulted through the usual channels, and said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, not consulted."] Well, he said that they were told through the usual channels. He said that that is not quite the same as being consulted. But if the Opposition were not happy with that, they should have raised their concerns at that stage. They did not do so, and we were entitled to believe that the official Opposition were content with the timetable. We proceeded on that basis, and I see no reason for the Committee to be detained any further on this matter.

Mr. MacKay: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I said to the right hon. Gentleman that I would allow him some prefatory remarks before he moved into the substance of his speech on the amendment. Almost a quarter of an hour has passed, during which points of order have been raised, and I think that it would be in better order for the Committee to proceed to the substance of the amendment.

Mr. MacKay: Let me say, Sir Alan, how much I agree that it would be in better order if we moved to the


substance of the important amendment that I am moving. I would not have discussed other matters for so long if I had received some sort of answer from the Minister. I place it on the record that the Minister has signally failed to tell the Committee why the Bill is emergency or urgent legislation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): It is not.

Mr. MacKay: Oh, it is not. I thank the hon. Gentleman. We have an answer. I appreciate that. From a sedentary position, the Home Office Minister has said clearly that this is not emergency or urgent legislation. That being so, I fail to understand why it is being pushed through the House of Commons at such speed. As the hon. Gentleman seems to know more about the Bill than the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, perhaps he will explain to me why the Bill is being dealt with at such speed. It seems that he is not prepared to do so.
It is now clear, Sir Alan, that we are not dealing with urgent or emergency legislation. That being so, we are faced with total abuse of the House of Commons. You have been placed in an extremely difficult position. As you rightly said earlier, you have had a tight timetable, as has the rest of the House of Commons, to consider amendments. We know now of the Government's arrogance. We know also that they could not care less for the House of Commons. They wish to push through non-urgent legislation at an extremely fast pace. We now see clearly what the new Labour Government are all about, and it stinks. The Under-Secretaries of State should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
I shall now proceed because I do not wish to drag you into these matters, Sir Alan. My quarrel is not with you because you are being put in an equally difficult position. Having said that the Ministers should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and its having been made clear that this is not emergency legislation, I repeat that the Government are bulldozing the Bill through the House of Commons in a most unsatisfactory way. I shall now discuss my amendment in some detail.

Mr. Fallon: On a point of order, Sir Alan. If no explanation is forthcoming from the Government Front Bench as to why Second Reading and Committee are being taken so close together, can you tell the Committee whether any explanation has been given to Madam Speaker?

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

6 pm

Mr. MacKay: Let us consider amendment No. 10, which is grouped with new clause 1. The latter was tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and Ulster Unionist Members. A month ago, the courageous First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), made the decision to enter into an Executive with members of Sinn Fein. We considered the matter long and hard, and concluded that he was right and that, yet again, we would walk the extra mile with him to try to ensure that the process moved forward. We have always supported that process, from the Belfast agreement onwards. The Under-Secretary of State

for Northern Ireland will willingly confirm that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) started the process, and was ably abetted by Lord Mayhew and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is in his place.
There were signs before Christmas that Sinn Fein-IRA would at last fulfil its obligations under the Belfast agreement. I use the phrase "Sinn Fein-IRA" correctly because successive Prime Ministers and Taoiseachs have stated that Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked and one and the same; they are two sides of the same coin. There were signs that Sinn Fein-IRA would decommission its illegally held arms and explosives by May 2000. That hope was shared, perhaps naively, by me and others. The majority of Members of Parliament supported the Government and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann as First Minister of the Executive that was being set up.
All hon. Members in every party in the House are democrats. We all believe that it is unsatisfactory for Ministers to run part of the United Kingdom when they remain inextricably linked with men of violence who have failed to end their violence for good or fulfil their obligations under the Belfast agreement to decommission any of their illegally held arms and explosives. Not one gun or one ounce of Semtex has been handed in by any of the paramilitaries—republican and so-called loyalist—whose political associates signed the Belfast agreement.
It would not be right in our free society for the two Sinn Fein Members of the Assembly who are Ministers respectively for Education and for Health to retain those Executive positions without substantial decommissioning. I therefore support what the Secretary of State and the First Minister have said repeatedly: early decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives must take place. Most reasonable people believe that that must happen this month, which ends next Monday, or shortly thereafter.
Sadly, having met a wide variety of people in the Province during a four-day visit, which concluded on Sunday, I can report that few people believe that Sinn Fein-IRA will fulfil its obligations and decommission. I hope and pray that they are wrong, because it is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland that decommissioning occurs, and that the Executive is able to continue to run much of Northern Ireland. The politicians whom the people of Northern Ireland elected should be responsible for much of the running of their Province. That is healthy and helpful, and we wish to encourage it. The people of Northern Ireland would dearly like to continue with that process.
Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 show that we have absolute faith in General de Chastelain and the commission. It is for him, not—with the greatest respect—for you, Sir Alan, or me or the Under-Secretary to decide whether decommissioning has taken place. If the general, when he reports on Friday or Monday, reports that there has been no decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by the Provisional IRA, the Secretary of State has no choice but to do that which he has promised the House and the people of Northern Ireland: he must suspend the Executive until progress has been made.
Conservative Members believe passionately that, in such dire and sad circumstances, it is up to the Secretary of State to suspend the Executive. It should not be left to the First Minister and his Unionist colleagues to resign and thus close down the Executive.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that Conservative Members relied totally on General de Chastelain. It may well be possible to rely on the general's words, but how can we rely on any construction that the Government's spin doctors might put on them?

Mr. MacKay: The general is obliged to report by the end of the month. When he does that, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members will study his words carefully, and we shall take no notice of whatever spin is put on them by those who wish to influence events. I know the general, and I believe that his report will be clear and succinct and not open to various interpretations.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I do not know the general, but I am sure that he is an excellent man. Everything that I have heard about him is good. However, there is currently an idea that, instead of being destroyed or surrendered, weapons will be kept in bunkers in which terrorist organisations place them, where they will be permanently out of their reach. How can any intact weapons, in bunkers whose location is known to terrorist organisations, be permanently out of their reach? Perhaps my right hon. Friend can enlighten me.

Mr. MacKay: If I answered that point in too much detail, I would be trespassing on your good nature, Sir Alan. However, I shall respond briefly to my hon. Friend, who takes a deep interest in such matters. He is joint vice-chair of the Conservative Northern Ireland Committee.
Successive Governments have used the word "decommissioning" rather than destroying or surrendering. I am not too fussed about the way in which weapons and explosives are decommissioned as long as it happens. It does not matter whether they are destroyed, handed in or left in sealed containers, provided that General de Chastelain and his staff can police them at all times.

Mr. Fallon: rose—

Mr. MacKay: I will certainly give way but first I want to clarify our position for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). Where I have great criticism of the paramilitaries, republican and so-called loyalists, is that not one gun or ounce of Semtex has been handed in. I want substantial progress towards the decommissioning of all illegally held arms and explosives by the appointed day in May this year. So far, we have seen no progress whatsoever. That is what really counts.

Mr. Fallon: The word "decommissioning" is used in my hon. Friend's amendment, so I am sure that he is right

to explain at length what is meant by it. Is my right hon. Friend saying that putting weapons in a sealed container is decommissioning? If so, can he say the purpose for which those weapons could possibly be needed?

Mr. MacKay: The word "decommissioning" is not only used in the amendments but was used in the Belfast agreement and all the legislation that came from it. I am sure that successive Governments have been right to define that process as decommissioning. I am anxious to ensure that weapons are decommissioned—taken out of commission. Whether they are taken out of commission by being destroyed or are retained in a sealed container that is properly policed is secondary to ensuring that they are all decommissioned. We want them all decommissioned by the said date in May. That is essential.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend knows well that the Bill is about a proposed change to an aspect of our constitutional arrangements that many of us believe is of fundamental importance—allowing aliens to enter the House. Given that he believes that such a change could properly be brought about provided the words in the amendment are fulfilled, does he not think it reasonable to be more than fully satisfied that the meaning of the words "decommissioning" and "substantial progress" are positive, reassuring and provide a guarantee such as we would require before allowing aliens into the House?

Mr. MacKay: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which is why I have discussed decommissioning at some length and am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) for pressing me to define "decommissioning" more fully.

Mr. William Thompson: rose—

Mr. MacKay: I have not completely answered my right hon. Friend and know that he will want me so to do. It is vital, as decommissioning goes to the heart of the amendment and new clause, not only to debate the merits of decommissioning but to take a look at where we are on decommissioning and how it relates to the Executive. Vital, crucial days lie ahead for the Province. Every law-abiding person in both communities is hoping and praying that there will be substantial decommissioning so that the process and the Executive can proceed. That is the crucial test.

Mr. Thompson: Is it not a fact that under the legislation by which General de Chastelain is operating, the arms have to be destroyed? Hiding them in bunkers will not satisfy that law.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman and I were both sitting in the House when that legislation was passed in July 1998. I would need to double check the detail of that legislation before answering. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby whether I would be satisfied with decommissioning if it turned out to be, as he would put it, merely sealing the weapons in bunkers. I said it was vitally important that we had decommissioning in full and, provided that it is properly policed by the general and his staff, I could live with that. If my hon. Friend the


Member for Sevenoaks is asking whether I would prefer the weapons just to be sealed, of course the answer has to be no. My preferred option is obviously to have them destroyed in front of General de Chastelain's staff.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby was trying to tease out of me whether I could live with the weapons being sealed. The answer is yes. What is vitally important is that decommissioning takes place, so that the process can move forward and the Executive can continue to function. That is absolutely what the overwhelming majority of both communities in Northern Ireland want and I believe the majority of right hon. and hon. Members want that.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is not the essential point that the so-called paramilitaries hold weapons illegally? There are no circumstances in which they can hold those weapons legally. The ceasing of all holding of those weapons is decommissioning. I beg my right hon. Friend not to allow a grey area into the debate at this stage. We cannot accept anything other than paramilitaries no longer having illegal weapons in their physical possession—even if policed for the time being by General de Chastelain's officers.

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I may be of assistance. I begin to see in my mind some limitation on the extent to which one can define the word "decommissioning". As I read the amendments and new clause, it is a matter of the belief of the Secretary of State in one case and, in the other, of the belief of the commission. Those are the matters being debated and it would be out of order if the Committee attempts to make fresh definitions. The definitions required are explicit in the amendments.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Surely the term "decommissioning" is only defined, so far as the law of the United Kingdom is concerned, in the Act that creates the decommissioning process. The definition in that Act should matter, not anything that people might wish to introduce by any side wind during this debate. We are dealing with decommissioning as already legally defined—as being the destruction of the weaponry.

The Chairman: Order. Nothing I have said implies any detraction from what is said in the original Act. I merely repeat my advice to the Committee that the amendments deal with the opinions of certain other stated persons or bodies, as to whether or not decommissioning as defined is being fulfilled.

Mr. MacKay: I naturally accept your advice, Sir Alan, and will proceed accordingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has immense experience in this field and is joint vice-chairman with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby of the Conservative Back-Bench Committee and has taken great interest in these matters.

The Chairman: Order. Notwithstanding the experience of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), which I acknowledge, that does not altogether debar him from sometimes stepping aside from the amendment being discussed.

Mr. MacKay: Therefore, Sir Alan, it is worth reminding my hon. Friend that I have stressed to you the

phrase, "illegally held arms and explosives" every time that I have discussed the matter. I think you will confirm, Sir Alan, that I have used the word "illegal" every time. There is no question that persons could retain the weapons in bunkers themselves; those bunkers would not be under their control but would be overseen by the commission. As you rightly say, Sir Alan, that moves us away from the amendment, although I might add that that movement is not of my own making, but has been caused by interventions.

Mr. Graham Brady: I hesitate to intervene on that cue, but will my right hon. Friend elucidate for my benefit? Does the earlier legislation define "substantial progress"? If not, surely it is necessary to debate what constitutes substantial progress towards decommissioning for these purposes.

The Chairman: Order. If the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is, by his own admission, having difficulty in determining whether he is straying out of order as a result of interventions rather than anything he has said himself, I might help him by saying that he would be unwise to answer.

Mr. MacKay: May I answer briefly? No, and wisely so. New clause 1 quite rightly refers to "substantial" decommissioning and, although we had little time due to the speed at which the Bill was foisted on the Committee, we took some trouble to draft it carefully. We believe that General de Chastelain can say in his report whether substantial decommissioning has taken place. In other words, token decommissioning will not satisfy the House. Substantial decommissioning, heading towards full decommissioning by the appointed day in May, appears to us to be quite reasonable and it is well within the scope of the amendment, and within the House's understanding of decommissioning, to allow him to define whether that has taken place. We need substantial decommissioning and substantial decommissioning we must have.
I return to the Bill in general and why we have tabled the amendment and new clause 1, which, with respect, are the most important and substantial of those before the Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will disagree, although you, Sir Alan, may consider them to be the most important. The Bill does not in any way flow from the Belfast agreement. It is not urgent, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have more or less confirmed from the Dispatch Box and in sedentary interventions, and, so far as I can see, not many people have asked for such a measure.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) deeply believes the Bill to be to be a constitutional outrage—as do my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who is much respected—but we on the Conservative Front Bench are fairly agnostic. We think that it is not anywhere near the constitutional outrage that they suggest, although we would be happy to give it fair wind if only we felt confident that it would be enacted only as and when General de Chastelain made it clear that there had been substantial decommissioning. I shall tell the Committee why, because that is the key issue.
The process has been all take by the paramilitaries, and absolutely no give. The British and Irish Governments and the peace-loving constitutional parties—Unionist, Alliance or nationalist—have jumped every hurdle that they have been asked to jump. The Assembly elections have taken place. The Executive has been set up—with two Sinn Fein Ministers—as was correct under the legislation. Terrorist prisoners have been released early from jail and are back on the streets—more than 300 hundred already.
North-south bodies have been set up. The Patten report on policing in the Province has been completed and the Government are shortly to introduce legislation to make changes. That is all give by the Government and all take by the paramilitaries, republicans and so-called loyalists. Some of us might say that we have had precious little in return so far.
I fundamentally disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Although I do not believe that the Bill is important, why should we pass unimportant legislation and give a bit more when we are getting nothing in return? Is not it time for the House and the Government to draw a line in the sand and say, "This far and no further. We will agree to the Bill going through only if there is substantial decommissioning as defined by General de Chastelain."? That is why I commend the amendment and the consequent new clause to the Committee.

Mr. Forth: Following directly from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has said, it is interesting that in yesterday's debate the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said:
In particular, the establishment of the new institutions provided for in the Good Friday agreement makes the measure timely."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 28.]
That clearly establishes a link in his mind between the Good Friday agreement and the measure before us. It can do none other. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that
the arrangements between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and this House—and the Government—are unique and different. Our response to the agreement must reflect that. The argument is about context rather than precise linkage."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 73.]
Two Ministers said in the debate on Second Reading that there is a connection—a link—between the Good Friday agreement and the Bill. I do not see how they can deny that, because their own words, which appear in Hansard, illustrate the point all too directly. We have an answer to the question that we all struggled with yesterday. Given the benefit of reflection—how valuable it is during parliamentary proceedings—we are beginning to detect a link in the minds of Ministers. That is helpful and puts the amendment in context.

Mr. Fallon: Does that suggest to my right hon. Friend and the Committee that some understanding between the two Governments on that precise point—secret, perhaps, or covert—has not been revealed?

Mr. Forth: I would like to think that we shall learn more today than we did yesterday and my hon. Friend is

correct to raise that point. Our suspicion yesterday was not that there was an arrangement between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, but, much more sinister, that there was a deal or undertaking between the Government and Sinn Fein-IRA. That is even more worrying and we suspect that it, rather than the connections between the Good Friday agreement and the Bill—which Ministers had dragged out of them, as Hansard has verified—may be the genesis of this ill-begotten and untimely measure.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we have not yet had a comprehensive list of all whom the Government consulted in regard to the Bill. We have dragged out of the Government only that they consulted the leader of the Unionist party and, presumably, the usual channels.

The Chairman: Order. That is a matter for Second Reading, which has passed.

Mr. Forth: A perusal of yesterday's Hansard might show that Ministers said that they would consider those matters and report back, but perhaps this is not the moment for that to happen.
In speaking to the amendment in my name, amendment No. 1, so far I have not been persuaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, in his elegant moving of his amendment and new clause, for a reason that began to become rather too obvious—for him to seek to link the mechanism contained in the Bill with the decommissioning process may well be unsatisfactory. I regret the fact that I do not believe that the words of my right hon. Friend's new clause, which rely on the words "Decommissioning" and "substantial progress", give sufficient guarantees or reassurance when it comes to altering an arrangement as fundamental as that relating to who is or is not qualified to sit in the House of Commons. I simply cannot see that.
I shall argue in the context of my own amendment that nor was I entirely satisfied with the provisions in the new clause that the Act should come into force
on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint".
That is a pretty slender basis on which to base such a measure, as we all realise. My amendment, by contrast, seeks to both broaden and sharpen the requirement by providing that the section would
come into force on a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State
who
shall not make such an order unless he has previously laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement in relation to the Belfast Agreement …, stating that in his opinion and",
crucially,
in the opinion of all parties to that Agreement all aspects of the Agreement have been implemented.
What the amendment seeks to do is make much more certain the basis on which we might proceed to the measures contained within the Bill.
I made it clear on Second Reading—I hope that I shall make it clear again on Third Reading—that I am against the Bill in principle. I want that to be absolutely clear.


I took part in a vote against the Bill last night, but what we are doing now is different: the House having given the Bill a Second Reading, we are now seeking ways in which to improve and strengthen it. It is in that regard that I put my amendment to the Committee this evening.
Before we can progress with the Bill, a number of closely interrelated things must happen. The first is that the Secretary of State will make an order only if he has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement that, in his opinion, all of the requirements of the Belfast agreement have been met, but also, crucially, that all parties to the agreement state that all aspects of it have been implemented. This will give the whole matter a much more solid and reliable foundation, because we are now not only relying on the Secretary of State, who is always a key element in these matters, but—in my view rightly—asking all parties to the agreement to say "We are sufficiently satisfied that the agreement has been met in all respects and we are now prepared to accept that we move on to the next crucial stage of allowing foreigners into the House of Commons."

Mr. Robathan: Given what my right hon. Friend is saying, which makes great sense, and given that we all accept—on this side of the House, even if the Government might deny it—that the whole purpose of the Bill is yet another bribe to Sinn Fein, can he imagine why the Government would not accept his amendment? Surely the bribe to Sinn Fein is designed to get Sinn Fein to give up its weapons. Therefore, is he surprised that the Government appear to be likely to oppose the amendment?

Mr. Forth: That remains to be seen. What my hon. Friend illustrates yet again is that we are all still guessing. Is it not a disgrace that, at this stage in the Bill's proceedings, the House of Commons is still not clear as to the motivation behind the Bill, the reasons why the Government have introduced it and why they are bringing it in with such undue haste? There is widespread suspicion, certainly on this side of the House, that it is part of an extremely grubby deal, where the Government are prepared to give away another key element of our constitutional arrangements for nothing at all. That is how it looks, and it is the only assumption on which we can operate unless Ministers tell us otherwise.
If my hon. Friend accepts the quotations of Ministers that I gave from yesterday's Hansard, he will agree that, in the minds of Ministers on the Treasury Bench, there is a link between the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday agreement and the Bill. Amendment No. 1 seeks formally to embed that in the Bill. I simply seek—perhaps fortuitously, because I tabled the amendments before I had even heard what the Ministers said, but everybody has to have a little bit of good luck in their time—to give Ministers a formalisation of the link that they themselves were making, as reported in yesterday's Hansard. To the extent to which that is the case, I have enormous confidence that Ministers will want to accept my amendment.
Ministers might even prefer my amendment to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell because, for the reasons that we saw just a moment ago in the debate, my right hon. Friend, with all his skill and experience, was not quite able to persuade some of us that his amendment was sufficiently airtight and watertight to

give us the reassurances that we would naturally want to have. I believe that my amendment does the job even better, because it involves the judgment of the Secretary of State on the one hand and the judgment of all the parties to the agreement on the other. It then goes even further, because in subsection (2B) it says, crucially:
No order shall be made under subsection (2A)"—
that is, the Secretary of State's order with the agreement of all the parties built into it—
unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
What we are saying is that it would require both Houses to agree that the composition of the House of Commons could be changed as envisaged in the Bill. That would mean, in this case, the ability of aliens—non-United Kingdom citizens from the Republic of Ireland, a different and separate country, with many different and separate interests, as we explored briefly on Second Reading yesterday—to enter the House of Commons.
It distresses me that I must disagree with my right hon. Friend: he thinks that this is a small measure, whereas I think that it is a profoundly important measure. What could be more important than who is or is not entitled to come to this House and represent the people of the United Kingdom, from all parts of the United Kingdom? What could be more important, as a matter of definition of our nationality and as a matter of a statement of our relations with other countries? That is why I believe that we would have to be doubly, triply—or even more than that—satisfied before we allowed any significant alteration to the arrangements that have hitherto applied on these matters. We are talking about citizens of the Republic of Ireland—legislators in the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland—being qualified to sit in this House. Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, an explicit linkage to the Belfast agreement must surely be appropriate.

Mr. David Winnick: Since the right hon. Gentleman puts so much emphasis on a connection between the Bill and the Belfast agreement—it is his wish to make such a connection—may the House know whether he is in favour of the agreement? When I look at the Opposition Benches, I note that all the Unionist Members present are against the agreement. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who takes a close interest in Northern Ireland and has done so for many years, is against it. What is the right hon. Gentleman's view?

Mr. Forth: My view is that an agreement that has facilitated the release of some very disgusting people from prison into the community, is facilitating terrorists' friends being invited into United Kingdom institutions, and may now be being used as the vehicle whereby a change such as that encompassed in the Bill is to be made to our constitutional arrangements, is of increasingly doubtful validity.

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman has given the answer to my question, but was he against the agreement when it was signed? The hon. Members I mentioned, who have every right to their opinion, as I have to mine, made it clear at the time that they were against the agreement. Was the right hon. Gentleman against it?

Mr. Forth: I may have had my doubts at the time, but I was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to all


parties to the agreement, on the assumption that, if they were all operating in a spirit of genuine goodwill, it provided an opportunity to resolve the problems that have bedevilled part of the United Kingdom for so long. Time has passed, however. Changes have occurred, and the factors that I have mentioned have led me to doubt increasingly whether we were right to feel so optimistic.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the terms of the Bill are outside those of the Belfast agreement in any event?

Mr. Forth: That is an important point. It is all very well for Ministers to sit grinning and nodding, but it is they who made the connection between the agreement and their own Bill. Unless they retract, clarify or change the meaning of what they said yesterday, that remains the case. I quoted those words only a few minutes ago—not my words, but those of one of the Ministers. I hope that one, or both, will take the opportunity—

Mr. George Howarth: rose—

Mr. Forth: Of course I shall give way to the Minister.

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman did, indeed, read out the relevant words from Hansard, but they do not mean what he suggested. In the part of my speech that he quoted, I specifically used the word "context". The right hon. Gentleman should realise that using the word "context" is different from saying that the Bill is in some way related to the Good Friday agreement, and he should not misrepresent what was said by me or by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Forth: That is all very well, but I quoted the words of the Under-Secretary of State first, and I think that they were even more relevant. Having been asked to quote them again, I will—with your indulgence, Mr. Martin. The Under-Secretary of State said:
The Bill is just one example of that closer relationship … it is built on the firm foundation of the principle of consent that is central to the Good Friday agreement, and which was enshrined in law … The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, but it is consistent with it.
All the words that the hon. Gentleman used yesterday—there were many more, but I shall not weary the Committee with them now—sought to establish a causal link between the agreement and the Bill.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend omitted a key part of what was said by the Under-Secretary of State. He said:
The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, but it is consistent with it. Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 28.]
Does that not suggest that there were discussions at the time of the agreement, and that they were part and parcel of the Bill?

Mr. Forth: It is beginning to sound very much like that, is it not? I wish that, rather than sitting there

giggling, Ministers would do the Committee the courtesy of giving us a proper, full and open explanation of the genesis of what increasingly seems to be the grubby little measure that we are considering. They should let us know what gave rise to it, why they are presenting it now, why it is so urgent, and what they expect to gain from it.
I hope that, if the Ministers did not understand what they were told, they may understand it better as a result of the help that they are being given. I also hope that, when they reply to the series of important debates in which we shall continue to engage during the next few hours, we shall discover from them what on earth is going on.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: We have two options. The first is to believe that the Bill emerged from behind-the-scenes discussion with Sinn Fein in an attempt to hand Sinn Fein another sop in terms of the agreement, arising from it. The second is to believe that—all of a sudden, out of a clear blue sky, with no prior discussion, with no public interest and with no newspaper commentators raising the subject—a Government with a huge agenda manufactured the Bill. Which option does my right hon. Friend prefer?

Mr. Forth: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) is talking about the Bill. Interventions should relate to the amendments and new clause that we are discussing.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin. You have possibly saved me from having to make the difficult choice presented to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). I may return to the matter later, when I gauge that you might allow me more leeway, but I dare not do so now.

Mr. Robathan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I am approaching the conclusion of my speech, and I hope that my colleagues will bear that in mind; but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robathan: Earlier, my right hon. Friend responded to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked whether he supported the Belfast agreement. We supported it—with some reservations—because it appeared to be supported by the great majority of people in Northern Ireland. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable misgivings felt by large sections of the community in Northern Ireland, especially the Unionist community, who voted in favour of the agreement but now believe that they were hoodwinked in certain ways, not least by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Forth: I cannot answer the question that my hon. Friend poses, but others in the Chamber can, and I hope that they will seek an opportunity to do so. It is important for us to know as much as possible about the views of the people of Northern Ireland before we proceed much


further. This is a valid aspect of our considerations. I cannot give the views of those people, but there are those sitting very close to me who could.
What I am trying to say is very simple. In my view, the key measure in the Bill—I am against the Bill in principle, but the House gave it its blessing by agreeing to Second Reading—cannot be allowed to proceed without conditionality. It cannot be allowed to proceed without reassurance and guarantees. The guarantees that I suggest—I hope that I shall be able to test the Committee's view at an appropriate time—would explicitly link activation of the Bill with completion of all aspects of the Belfast agreement, as established by all parties to that agreement. I consider that to be proper, reasonable, straightforward and comprehensible, and I think that it should therefore form a key part of the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: I call Mrs. Dunwoody.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I realise that one of my advantages is being so tiny and insignificant that I am rarely noticed.
It will greatly please Ministers to learn that I do not intend to speak at length. The amendments, however, strike me as important, in as much as they relate to the Bill and to the qualifications of those who will have the right to sit in the House of Commons.
The title of the Bill is a bit of a misnomer. It is not so much a disqualifications Bill as a qualifications Bill. One of the hazards presented by the new clause and, from a different angle, the amendments is the confusion in Members' minds about whether the particular measure being introduced relates to a particular group of persons who have not been identified. If that is the case, and if it had been put to us that we are now confronted by an entirely different political situation that requires us to make fundamental changes to the qualifications of those who wish to enter the House of Commons because we need much wider representation, people would be better able to judge the amendments.
Before my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asks, I am in favour of the Belfast agreement. If I have objections to the Bill and to the amendments, they arise from my belief that, if constitutional change is made without detailed examination, once the legislation is on the statute book—especially if debate has been, what shall I say? somewhat foreshortened—we often end up with wording, even with basic changes, that may not constitute exactly what we foresaw. That is why I feel impelled to say that I am worried not just about the amendments, but the qualifications that would apply in future to people who wanted to be candidates.
I do not have a great wish to be a Member of the Dail, not least because one of my best friends had to sit through eight recounts before knowing whether he had been elected. I pointed out to him that, after the second recount, I would put my coat on, go home and suggest that someone tell me when a conclusion had been reached. However, I would not want the Minister to think that my views on proportional representation were influencing any of my comments tonight.
The amendments and the new clause can be dealt with simply. If we were told whether some political decision or political change necessitated the passage of the Bill in this form, without qualifications or restrictions on the people who can be candidates for the House of Commons, and if we were told that the changes had to be made now, the matter would possibly be dealt with quickly. I do not think that we have been told those things. Those who propose restrictions in the amendments do so from a genuine desire to ensure that we do not allow constitutional change to put us in a position that we might regret, if not in the near future, certainly before many months have passed.
So I make one suggestion to Ministers: speak clearly to us, explain fully to us what is implied and, above all, remember that constitutional change applies to every Member of the House of Commons, wherever they come from, whatever their background, sex, religion or general approach to life. It therefore behoves those of us who believe in democracy to ensure that the one thing that they have in common is a commitment to a democratic form of government.

Mr. Cash: Last night, I voted against the Bill on principle, for several reasons. I saw no reciprocity between the arrangements that are being provided for the House and the arrangements in the Dail and in Eire as a whole. That in itself is unfair and unreasonable in all circumstances, but the issue goes much deeper than that. The question that is before us has not been answered by the Government. We have continually put to them issues relating to why the Bill should be brought before us at this stage. We have had no answer whatever. That is an outrage and it is why I tabled the amendment.
My amendment No. 32 states:
in respect of Ireland, a person who is or has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who has not disavowed terrorism within the meaning given to that expression by that Act before taking his or her seat in the said House or Assembly shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly".
I challenge the Government to answer the point. Is it conceivable that anyone who did not disavow terrorism as a matter of principle would take their place in a democratic society and democratic Government under a constitutional arrangement, whether in respect of the House of Commons, or the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Mr. Mark Oaten: The hon. Gentleman speaks of Members coming into a democratic society. Is it not for a democratic election to decide the merit of those individuals and which House they enter? The electorate would ultimately make that judgment in a democratic society.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It is not inconceivable that there are people in Ireland who would want to stand for election and who had not disavowed terrorism. If they stood and were successful, it would be inherent in the Standing Orders of the House and in the duty to protect the people of this country to ensure that anyone who did not disavow terrorism should not take their seat in the House—just as, without going into the merits of the process, they would not be able to take their seat in the House without


declaring their Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. The question of terrorism is thus of fundamental importance in the context of the Bill.
We face a strange situation. After all, in the 19th century, during debate on the home rule Bill in 1886, Mr. Parnell, who took a strong position with respect to home rule, supported by Mr. Gladstone, made it clear in a memorandum that was put forward, effectively, in his name that he
would not stand out on the question whether the Irish Members should reman in the imperial Parliament or be excluded from it.
We have come full circle. It is clear that, at that time, Mr. Parnell was not against the idea of members of the Irish nation, as he would have put it, being excluded from the so-called imperial Parliament. We are posing for ourselves the West Lothian question in relation to Ireland as a whole. If members of the Irish nation, as they would put it, are to stand and to be elected in this country, it follows that we will face exactly the same issues as those raised by the West Lothian question. As a colleague of mine said to me earlier today, instead of the West Lothian question, we might just as well raise the East Connemara question.
The Bill is directly relevant to a devolution question. I believe strongly that we should also look at a much deeper question that faces the Committee: what really lies behind the Government's objectives.
As I have often said, the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons. It is becoming clear that the best way to keep a secret is to promote a Bill without giving any reasons for it. We have not had a single reason from the Government. I look to the Minister, who is now shaking his head—he was nodding earlier; he does not know which way to go—to say why the Bill has been introduced at all.
Some of us look at the Irish issue not as a means of dividing ourselves from our colleagues or friends in Ireland, but to discover whether what is being done is inimical to the interests of this country, or indeed of Eire as a whole. We have no reciprocal arrangements in respect of the Bill. I demand that the Minister explain before the debate on the amendment is concluded, or on Third Reading, why the Bill has been introduced.
On Second Reading, many people raised the legitimate question of the conflict of loyalty and interest—that Members cannot serve two nations—but there is another question at the heart of what is behind the Government's thinking. There is a proposal, albeit embryonic, for arrangements within the—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about the Bill in its entirety. He must confine himself to the amendments, one of which is his own.

Mr. Cash: I will indeed. Anyone who promoted terrorism and was not prepared to renounce it would invade the sovereignty of the country in which they proposed to stand and be elected, or be disqualified under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Anyone who proposed to stand for this Parliament but was not prepared to renounce terrorism would invade the sovereignty of the citizenship and the right of the electors.
7 pm
I therefore ask the Minister to answer this question: is it inconceivable that the real reason why the Bill has been introduced is that Ministers are proposing an arrangement whereby there is no conflict, and people are able to stand for election and to be elected to the House, because we shall be subject to a European Union arrangement under which Ireland and the United Kingdom are part of the same province? That would be a very convenient way of dealing with the problem that Ministers face with Sinn Fein and its aspirations in relation to Ireland as a whole.
Has the Minister had any direct discussions with Sinn Fein on the Bill? We know that there were secret discussions last year. I should like to know whether the Minister is prepared to deny that the arrangements for this Bill and for the future of Northern Ireland were discussed with Sinn Fein-IRA, within a constitutional—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman mentioned the amendments and not the Bill in its entirety. He could have raised those issues in yesterday's debate on Second Reading.

Mr. Cash: I am speaking to an amendment that raises the issue of whether a person who stands for election to this place or to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and who is elected, should be prepared to disavow terrorism. That is the key issue. Anyone who is prepared to stand for and to achieve election to this place, but not to disavow violence and terrorism, should be prevented from becoming a Member of this place. That is the key element of amendment No. 32.
I should be interested to know whether Opposition Front Benchers are prepared to support amendment No. 32, requiring a disavowal of terrorism. I do not know the answer to that, as I have had no indication from Front Benchers whether they would be prepared to go down that road. However, a requirement to disavow terrorism must be equivalent to one requiring us to take the Oath of Allegiance.

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend will be aware that, very wisely, legislation on the Northern Ireland Assembly that he and I helped to pass includes a provision requiring Assembly Members to disavow violence before taking their seats in the Assembly, let alone on the Executive. It is an interesting issue, and we should give it further consideration. Nevertheless, I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking to his amendment, enabling us to discuss the matter in greater detail.

Mr. Cash: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. However, although that provision may apply to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it does not seem to apply to the House of Commons.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the comments of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), does it not seem to be a contradiction that we have Assembly Members who are supposed to have repudiated violence saying publicly that, if they do not get their way, they will go back to doing the things that they do best—blowing up schools, hospitals and industry, and killing people? How can anyone say that a person


who says such things has given up violence? We know perfectly well that some of those who have been released on to the streets have gone back to violence and attacking police.

Mr. Cash: That was one of the reasons why, last year, when we were considering other legislation, I was deeply concerned. I objected to releasing terrorists into the community simply on the basis of a very sordid deal with Sinn Fein-IRA.
Does the Minister agree that the Government should clearly state that, in principle, no one who fails to conform with the requirements of a provision such as amendment No. 32—which is consistent with the provisions of the Terrorism Bill—should be allowed to take a seat in the House of Commons?
We are debating a matter of principle and legislation that Ministers say is urgently needed, and I should like to know whether the Government are prepared to support my amendment. If they are not, they are effectively saying that, as far as they are concerned, anyone who does not renounce terrorism should be qualified to be a Member and to speak in the House of Commons.
I see the Minister shuffling around. He almost came to the Dispatch Box, but has not quite made it. Will he be good enough to tell me whether the Government agree with my amendment? If he is not prepared to say whether the Government agree with it, the Committee would be entitled to draw the conclusion that Ministers do not agree with it. The Committee would also be entitled to conclude that Ministers are prepared to allow those who do not renounce terrorism—in the context specified in the Bill—to join the House of Commons. I give him another opportunity to answer that question.

Mr. George Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will contain his impatience, I shall speak later in the debate and deal with the points that have been raised.

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister answer my specific question? Does he countenance on behalf of the Government the attendance in this place of those who are elected to the House but who are not prepared to renounce terrorism, although their track record clearly shows that they were interested in pursuing terrorism as a means of achieving change? Will he, please, answer that question? He has indicated a quarter of the answer, but will he now answer it?

Mr. Howarth: I shall answer it in my own time and in my own way.

Mr. Cash: I shall leave it at that. We shall have to wait until we hear the Minister's reply. However, the fact is that the Government are not prepared to state quite clearly that anyone who is elected to the House but not prepared to renounce terrorism will not be able to take his or her seat.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend will know that the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), has clearly said that he believes that the House should have the same level of security as the Northern Ireland Assembly—where, at least

supposedly, those who sit have said that they have forsaken any type of violence and believe in democracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members are right to insist that the Government should include in the Bill at least that safeguard, if not any other?

Mr. Cash: Yes. I am also very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, which were absolutely to the very point of the debate.
The Opposition spokesman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), has raised the decommissioning issue. However I say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) with great respect—at the heart of the issue is not merely a technical matter about bunkers or about whether we will make sufficient or substantial progress on decommissioning. Although that is a part of the issue, the real question is whether people should be in the Northern Ireland Executive or elected to the House if they are not prepared, given their track record, to renounce terrorism. In this Bill, that is the fundamental issue facing the Committee.

Mr. MacKay: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, but I want to press him a little further on this point. It is my understanding that the Belfast agreement's requirement that violence be renounced for good means that there must be no association with a paramilitary organisation that has failed to decommission its illegally held arms and explosives. As I said earlier, every Prime Minister and Taoiseach has said that Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked. It follows that people cannot renounce violence simply by swearing that they have renounced it if the paramilitaries with whom they are associated have failed to decommission, or have not even begun to do so. Would my hon. Friend accept that proposition?

Mr. Cash: I would certainly accept—as I have said repeatedly—that there is an absolute requirement for decommissioning in respect of the whole process, including the Belfast agreement. However, for any people with a track record of terrorism who stand for election to the Northern Ireland Assembly or this House, it would have to be clear, not only that they were associated with the process of decommissioning, but that, on behalf of their constituents, they would disavow terrorism. That is the gravamen of the amendment. It is a fundamental constitutional question about democracy.
I need not elaborate any further. I am deeply disappointed that more hon. Members are not present for this important debate, which is fundamental to the workings of our democracy. Given the history involved, and the practical realities of the present, it is disappointing that more attention is not being devoted to the matter.
I am strongly of the opinion that the Opposition should have voted against the Bill as a matter of principle yesterday. However, having said that, I look to the Government to support amendment No. 32. If they do not, they will stand condemned by their unwillingness to go along with the clear principle that people who want to become members of a legislature—whether it be the Northern Ireland Assembly or the House of Commons—cannot stand for election without disavowing terrorism.

Mr. William Ross: As yesterday, the debate is more wide ranging and interesting than the Government would have wished. The questions raised by all contributors go to the heart of our democracy, and the Government have not yet given us any real answers.
We are still considering the first group of amendments selected for debate, and I am grateful for the fact that it will be possible to go beyond 10 pm tonight. I hope that we will not be confronted with a motion to guillotine discussion on this important Bill. However, I should be somewhat surprised if we were not, as I suspect that Opposition Members are prepared to carry on the debate beyond the next two and three quarter hours so that the Government will be able to hear their views as we explore the detail of the Bill.
Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 tie implementation of the Bill to decommissioning. I shall return later in my remarks to decommissioning and what it means to any reasonable citizen in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 32 would exclude unreconstructed terrorists from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The degree to which some terrorists remain unreconstructed was made plain at the weekend, when we saw Mr. Adams—who should be regarded as a Member of this House—carrying the coffin of Tom McWilliams.
McWilliams was hanged in 1942 for the murder of a Roman Catholic police officer in Northern Ireland. Such murders were carried out whenever the IRA planned outbursts of violence in Northern Ireland to disrupt this country's war effort. An uncle of mine who died last year aged more than 90 was involved in work against the IRA at that time, so I know something about the period.
McWilliams belonged to the original IRA, the predecessor organisation to the Provisional IRA. The appearance at the weekend of Mr. Adams, given his role in Sinn Fein, illustrates the seamless spiritual line of violence in Irish politics that extends from long before 1942 right up to the present day. It is an unbroken line—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Joined-up terrorism.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for that phrase. The truth is that such people have not deserted violence. As I said yesterday, a mental reservation exists in them. They have proclaimed several times that the wording of the oaths and undertakings that they have been asked to accept was such that they were able to accept them.
That is why the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) may have been somewhat amiss in his remarks. Wording that is tight enough to tie down the IRA and their fellow travellers will be refused. Those people will not utter any words that do not allow them to justify, to themselves and their followers, what they have done. They will accept only words that allow them to continue with their violence, as and when they consider it necessary.
Amendment No. 1 would achieve two things: first, the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, and secondly, that implementation was by order of both Houses of Parliament. Those are reasonable points that

need to be accepted. All the tests set out in this group of amendments are reasonable tests of commitment to democracy.
How can armed terrorists be allowed into government? That is what has happened in Northern Ireland. The people involved are still armed. Anyone who thinks that they have deserted violence and are no longer tied to the IRA should have been disabused by the funeral at the weekend.
Those people's grip on their weapons is a public declaration that they believe in the power of weapons. They are wedded to the belief that power grows out of the barrel of a gun. It is not so much that they distrust the path of peace and democracy, but that they despise it. As de Valera once said, the majority have no right to be wrong—the corollary, of course, being that anyone who disagrees with the majority is wrong. De Valera changed his path eventually, but I suspect that he never changed his mind.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman suggested that I might have been remiss in respect of aspects of my amendment No. 32. However, the question of mental reservation would not arise if it were accepted, as it specifies explicitly that people would have to disavow terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Bill currently being considered in Committee, so people would not be able to engage in a mental reservation. Is not that suggestion reasonable?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's proposal uses language that is much stronger than that of any of the undertakings or commitments that the people about whom I speak have had to give to enter the Northern Ireland Assembly, so to that extent I agree with him. He is asking that a complete disavowal of terrorism be a requirement of any person seeking election, but the phrasing of that disavowal must be a great deal stronger than what has so far been used in Northern Ireland.
The amendments under consideration vary somewhat in their approach. Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 tie the application of the Bill to weapons, while amendment No. 32, rightly, demands visible and verbal conversion to democracy.
However, in some ways amendment No. 1 is more comprehensive, as it sets the whole of the Belfast agreement as the standard with which those who benefit from it must comply. In other words, it would require people to accept the agreement as a whole and not cherry-pick, as the term that is often used has it.
Messrs. Adams and McGuinness say that we should stick to the agreement. They mean, of course, that we should stick to their construction of the agreement, and not to that of any reasonable man. Those are two very different things. The reasonable man put his construction on the agreement at the start, so many of them voted for it and soon regretted it.
Amendment No. 1 makes the implementation of the agreement subject to the opinion of the Secretary of State and the judgment of Parliament. It says that the Secretary of State can accept that weapons are being decommissioned, and that the people who used them have been converted and are now decent, law-abiding and snow-white citizens. But, having made that judgment, the Secretary of State would, under the amendment, have to come before Parliament with an order. It would be


debatable and could be considered and explored so that its spin doctoring aspects might, to some extent, disintegrate. We could consider what the agreement and the decision reached actually meant, and whether these people had changed their minds. Such an examination should be welcomed by every hon. Member. If such a detailed examination were undertaken, we would know whether there was compliance with the requirements of the Good Friday agreement.
If the amendment were accepted, the agreement should be lauded by the Government. If a genuine conversion took place, the Government, every hon. Member and everyone in Northern Ireland would rejoice. But unless such an examination, or something like it, can be carried out, I think that people in Northern Ireland and many hon. Members will be extremely suspicious.
Conservative Members should also welcome the amendment. It avoids the dangers of cherry-picking, whether that is done by the Government, by the IRA or by parties prepared to be satisfied with less than the ideal. This is a holistic approach to the problem, and I think that the Government should welcome it. They tell us that we must not cherry-pick by taking out bits and pieces of the agreement but accept it as a whole. That is what we should be applying as the real test and standard of behaviour to be observed by folk who benefit from these things. There should be no mental reservations.
Let me turn now to decommissioning. There seem to be different views about the meaning of the word. I believe that under the agreement, the weapons must be destroyed. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) told the Unionist party that decommissioning meant what we saw happen to the Loyalist Volunteer Force weapons. That was nearly 14 months ago. The LVF brought in some home-made weapons—they had some ancient rifles that looked like the stuff brought in by Lord Carson for the old Ulster Volunteer Force in the early years of the last century. Some of the weapons could still be fired, and ammunition could be obtained for them but they were not modern weapons. If the LVF was relying on that armoury, I suspect that it is not in very good military shape.
No more have been produced, but the principle was clear. The weapons were brought in and cut up in front of television cameras. It was shown on television nationwide. That is what the leader of the Unionist party has told his party members that decommissioning means to him.
There have been reports in the press that the IRA could blow up the weapons. Let us be clear what that means. We cannot blow up guns. Suppose we built a stack of them and put a lot of explosive in the middle of it—we would simply distribute them to all and sundry for half a mile in every direction. Many of them would, I suspect, still be usable after that. Guns cannot be destroyed by that method. They have to be cut up or melted down—there is no other way. Rockets and mortars can be blown up, but that is a different kettle of fish.
Furthermore, what explosive would be surrendered? We could not be satisfied with a bang in a bog, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said. A bang in a bog could be created by a home mix—something that the IRA is expert at producing. So that is not acceptable. Such material must go to people who are

professionally qualified to say whether an explosive is Semtex or another explosive. It can then be blown up, burned, or whatever.
Bullets are a particular problem. They cannot safely be crushed, for they might explode, and they cannot be burned or exploded. They must be destroyed in some other way.
Ministers have made it plain that there must be substantial decommissioning and that it must be verifiable. Nobody has yet spelt out what substantial means; I have spelt out what verifiable means to me and, I believe, to the leader of my party, to every reasonable man and woman in the House and to the people of Northern Ireland. Given that we only have until May, the first tranche is unlikely to consist of half a dozen rusty revolvers or weapons that have been used to commit murder or other acts of violence. "Substantial" will mean many hundreds of weapons—large quantities of them—and hundredweights, possibly tonnes, of Semtex and other explosive.
The question has been posed time and again: who asked for the Bill, and why the rush? Who did the Government discuss it with? Is it related to the request or suggestion of members of Sinn Fein that Northern Ireland Members be allowed to sit in the Dail? We know that such a suggestion has been made—there is reference to it in the excellent documentation on the Bill produced by the Library. What would that mean? Is it not an effort by Sinn Fein-IRA to get a measure of condominium or joint authority in a more visible form over Northern Ireland? Is that what underlies the Bill? We deserve to be told; the longer these discussions continue, the more suspicious I become.
I can see no real reason for the Bill. There is certainly no urgency about it, yet it is being rushed through before we have time to ask the questions that need to be asked.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I want to focus my remarks on amendment No. 10 and new clause 1. Before I do so, I should like to commend the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on her speech. It is a pleasure, in a serious debate such as this, to be able to say to someone on the other side of the Committee that I agree with virtually every word that she said. I agreed not only with what she said but with the significance that she attached to clause 1, the qualification for serving in the House and the amendments that might affect that. I hope that she will not mind my saying that I also greatly admired the fineness and sharpness of her stiletto. In fact, it was so fine that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland still does not realise that he is bleeding.
The fact that amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 are on the amendment paper tells us something of significance about the Bill. Earlier, Mr. Martin reproached me for a question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I asked why the amendments to this clause had been put to the Committee today in such a rush after yesterday's Second Reading. I offered him a choice of answer: either that this was complete happenstance—the business managers had nothing better to do so they dreamed up a Bill that had no relation to anything and thought they would take up a couple of days of our time with it—or that the measure related to the Belfast agreement.
It is significant that all the amendments, which have been tabled and accepted as legitimate, relate to the agreement. They all relate to the process. It is clear—not only from Hansard, as my right hon. Friend pointed out—that the House authorities have no view on the merits of amendments, they rule only on the acceptability of amendments in the context of the Bill. That is what we are discussing.
In that light, the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich becomes even more important. She rightly pointed out that the debate is about qualification for serving in the House. That is an issue of fundamental importance, which goes far beyond whether a couple of Sinn Fein politicians—or even a couple of IRA or loyalist paramilitary politicians—are eligible to serve in this place, or whether that is desirable. Clause 1 carries far wider ramifications than that.
The first point that I make to the Government is that the amendments all set the context for the debate as to qualification for service in the House. The Minister would do the Committee a considerable service, and would lessen the contempt that the people of Northern Ireland will feel about the way in which the Government are proceeding, if—as his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said—he was a little more open with us as to the background to clause 1 and the amendments.

Mr. Oaten: Is it not because the Bill has wider implications, which go beyond Sinn Fein and Ireland, that it is somewhat unwise to link it to decommissioning issues? The Bill should stand alone.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is right in so far as clause 1 deals with a non-specific issue; it adds Ireland to several countries that are affected by the disqualification provisions—Commonwealth countries and so on. In that narrow sense, he has a point. However, I hope that he will not take it amiss when I point out that those of us who are operating in the real world understand what clause 1 and the amendments are about.
Clause 1 and the amendments that have already been accepted put the Bill in the context of the agreement—in the context of decommissioning and of terrorism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who has temporarily left the Committee, and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) pointed out. Although the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) is technically correct, the rest of us are debating the real issue that lies behind the amendments.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Reference has been made to other countries. The Americans do not allow people in, even on a visitor's visa, if they have a murder conviction. Can we possibly imagine that we should allow people—even those from Commonwealth countries—to stand for Parliament if they had such a record? The intervention of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) was not relevant.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I suspect that I should get on the wrong side of Mr. Lord were I to develop the hon. Gentleman's point, although it is a good one, which the whole Committee will understand.
I want to draw the Committee's attention to two aspects of amendment No. 10 and new clause 1: conditionality and progress on decommissioning. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is no longer in the Chamber, because it was not clear to me that there was as much difference between his view and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) as he thought. In the context of the agreement, decommissioning is the outward and visible sign of an inner grace. It is a demonstration of the fact that a renunciation of terrorism has taken place—or that there is a willingness to move away from it over time.
I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell as expressed in the phrasing of amendment No. 10 and new clause 1. I suspect that, had the roles been reversed and the Conservatives were in government, we might or might not have introduced the Bill. However, we are not debating the principle of the Bill; we are debating its substance, line by line. It has received its Second Reading. Given the Government's majority, it will become law. We are considering whether we can improve it.
That was the approach, with which I agree, taken by my right hon. Friend in his introductory remarks. He put his finger on two issues in the amendments that would make the Bill better. The first is progress on decommissioning. All of us—especially those who have been Members of Parliament for some time and, in particular, those of us who have had the privilege of serving in Northern Ireland—understand that the Belfast agreement was a deal. It was a deal endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland and that gave legitimacy to those right hon. and hon. Members who bought into it, despite our reservations about one or other aspect of the agreement. However, the legitimacy derived from the referendum told us that we had to buy into the deal.
As is shown in relation to amendment No. 10 and new clause 1, part of that deal related to decommissioning. If we consider the other issues in the deal, we find that progress has been made on all of them, with the one exception of decommissioning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell said that the Unionist community had given and given, but that no one else had given anything in their direction. I do not want to pursue that line of thought, although I share his perception.
Progress, which would have been inconceivable to many people a few years ago, has been made on the whole agreement, except on that one issue. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have had the pleasure of exchanging views on other matters, but he is not helping the Committee or—far more important—the people of Northern Ireland by maintaining that the Bill has no significance to the deal that was done in Belfast.
It is not helpful for the Committee to get into a debate tonight about the definition of decommissioning. However, I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell that, like him, I was recently in Belfast, and I was deeply worried to hear the latest Sinn Fein lie on decommissioning, which runs something like this: "We are not using the weapons. That is decommissioning". It is not, and to make substantial progress against a


background of Sinn Fein saying, "We will not use them any more and that is substantial progress on decommissioning" is to treat people with contempt.

Mr. MacKay: indicated assent.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that he would not countenance that definition of decommissioning. Were he to countenance it, he would lose the support of all Conservative Back Benchers in the process.

Mr. MacKay: I confirm that I share my right hon. Friend's disgust that Sinn Fein-IRA representatives are now simply saying that the fact that they are not killing or maiming many people with their guns is a form of decommissioning. That is not decommissioning as defined in legislation. More important, that is not decommissioning as defined by any reasonable, civilised person, and it certainly would not be acceptable to us or, I trust, to the Government.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am not in the least surprised, but I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend says. I know that Conservative Back Benchers will share that perception, but we need to hear that the Government also share it. The amendments concern substantial progress in decommissioning. Their importance, in the context of the clause, is that they affect the qualification for serving in the House.
My second point concerns conditionality. I have at least the virtue of being consistent. From day one—as the Minister, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and my right hon. and hon. Friends know—whatever reservations I might have had, I gave my support to the agreement. I have not wavered from that view. I have made it clear from time to time that I felt as much anger and distaste as did others, when I saw flocks of people being let out of jail, but I always gave the agreement my support, because it was a deal.
The Minister's problem, and the reason why these two amendments would introduce conditionality, is that there is a growing view in this country and in Northern Ireland—I hope that the Minister will not take it unkindly if I put it this way—that the political judgment of Ministers is now itself starting to undermine the agreement. There are those who simply do not understand why a more cautious approach was not taken to the release of prisoners, with conditionality built in, requiring response before the next step was taken. Any expert on conflict resolution or negotiation anywhere in the world could have told Ministers that the way that they are proceeding is precisely the wrong way to deliver the deal at the end.
As recently as last Wednesday, I was the first—perhaps the only—Member to raise conditionality with the Secretary of State in the context of his statement about reforms to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I said that reforms were manifestly necessary but I invited him to make the name change conditional. I was not greatly encouraged by his response, but he did not flatly say no, and I shall hang on to that, bearing it in mind that even he is not planning to implement the measures until the end of next year. A lot can happen between now and the end of next year.
7.45 pm
The conditionality of the amendments is not a new concept. Many of us have adhered to it from the beginning of this process, and it is precisely because tonight the prospects of progress on decommissioning do not look good, as the Minister knows, that conditionality becomes even more important.
Those of us who have taken an interest in Northern Ireland know—we do not suspect, we know—that in conjunction with the Bill, the Government planned this week to move orders to permit Sinn Fein elected representatives to make use of these facilities. We also know that the Government have shelved that plan indefinitely. Given that there is neither urgency nor emergency in respect of the Bill, the Government would have been wise to have taken a similar line, as advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, but two helpings of embarrassment on the same subject in the same week were probably too much. Having been a Minister, I understand that. Given that that followed a week in which the wheels kept coming off the Government's wagon, I can understand why they are forcing the Bill through tonight. However, that does not mean that the Bill cannot be improved and make some recognition of the realities of what is happening out there, and of what I learned in Belfast yesterday.
The Minister will not be inclined to accept conditionality—that was the message from the Secretary of State last week—and I understand that, but he would be well advised to do so. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell will press amendment No. 10 to a Division. If he does, I will vote with him. I tell the Minister that that vote will not be a cooling on the agreement by those who vote against him. It will be saying on the record that unless the Government look to their political judgment in these matters, we shall all find ourselves in extreme difficulty very shortly. It is right, and the role of the Opposition, seriously and carefully to warn the Government that there is a way to avoid that stigma. One way to avoid it would be to accept amendment No. 10 and new clause 1.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I shall follow the right hon. Gentleman.
I understand the aims of those who supported the agreement, and I am not arguing about the agreement, but I believe that a dangerous situation has developed. Last week, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it clear that those of us who had misgivings about the agreement had no right to make any comments in the House on recent developments. That was a shameful exhibition, and I hope that that theme does not re-emerge tonight. Time and again, we hear Labour Members who, rightly, are still fighting the battle of the coal mines, and it seems to me that any of us are right to keep arguing the case that we believe to be right. The average Ulsterman will not buy a pig in a poke, and wants to know what the bargain is. Some of us recognised the difficulties from the beginning.
There are those who keep arguing about decommissioning. I cannot understand how anyone in this House can be against proper decommissioning when this House legislated to decommission legally held sporting firearms throughout the nation. If we were concerned


about that, we ought to be concerned about the decommissioning of illegal weapons in the hands of terrorists.
My sense of humour has not left me completely, and I was amused to be told by certain sources that it was being considered that the weapons would be put in concrete bunkers and sealed. Some of us thought that if those people could tunnel out of the Maze, they could tunnel into those bunkers. I understand that someone with connections to Sinn Fein-IRA has said that there will be no announcement on decommissioning because there would need to be a convention of the IRA called to announce that, and no convention has been called.
The Bill contains a statement by the Home Secretary that the Bill conforms to European legislation. We believe that the Bill must conform to the Belfast agreement. I know that our Sinn Fein opponents, in political terms, do not believe that decommissioning was in the agreement. However, even a blind man on a galloping horse could see that it was in the agreement that decommissioning must take place.
The Government would be standing by and consolidating the agreement if they came forth now and said that they were prepared to accept the amendment and that there will be no further move on this issue unless the Belfast agreement has been ratified completely. That would save a lot of hassle, and would prevent a Division. However, I can assure the House that if the amendment is divided on, those of us voting for it will be putting on record the fact that if the Government are not prepared to stand by the agreement in all its parts, we are.

Mr. Hunter: In his exchange with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was characteristically over-generous. One need only look at the five lines of the Bill's title to see how narrow and limited it is in its objectives. There are deeper implications, but the Bill itself is restricted.
So far, our attention has been focused on three amendments and one new clause. However, that has been sufficient to bring to light some of the many baffling and puzzling features of the Bill.
First, why is the Bill being pushed through so rapidly? Still, no answer has come to that question. Secondly, what is the need for the Bill in the first place? We have speculated on that matter during our deliberations on the amendments.
The third baffling and puzzling point—there are many more to come—came when my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) invited the Minister to state unequivocally and unambiguously that it is totally intolerable that those who have not disavowed terrorism should be in this House. There were baffling moments when the Minister declined to answer. I thought that that was an extraordinary episode—that a Minister of the Crown should hesitate and remain silent on that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone made a strong argument on amendment No. 32, which amounted to this: why should the Government not accept the proposition in the amendment? That proposition is that there is no place in a democratic Parliament for people who are terrorists. That is consistent with the spirit of the Belfast agreement,

of which, I acknowledge, I am not a supporter—although I accept that others are. The proposition is consistent with the spirit of the agreement, and with the letter and spirit of Government policy. The Government therefore have no reason to reject the amendment.
We started our deliberations on the amendments with something of an academic argument about what we understood by decommissioning—a concept that is central to new clause 1 and the amendments. We may have started from different points, but we have finished very much on common ground. We understand that illegally held arms are precisely that: they are illegal and they should not be held. Decommissioning means the irretrievable and irreversible physical separation of paramilitaries from those weapons. Most of us can see no alternative to the physical destruction of those weapons. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) came to that position by the end of the exchange.
I strongly support the underlying proposition in new clause 1—that there should be linkage between the decommissioning of illegally held arms and the implementation of the Bill. To be honest, I would rather not have the Bill at all. I voted against it yesterday, and I oppose it in principle. Nothing that I heard last night—and, I suspect, nothing that I will hear tonight—has led me to change my mind.
Nevertheless, the composition of the House is such that the Bill is proceeding. On pragmatic grounds, one must try to be as positive as possible about it and to argue that its damage should be limited. In that respect, the linkage between decommissioning and the implementation of the Bill is a significant step in the right direction.
The arguments have been well rehearsed, and I can summarise them briefly. So far, there has been concession after concession to the republicans—concessions that have come in return for virtually nothing. Their prisoners have been released, and the north-south body—the embryonic structure for an all-Ireland Government—has been created. They have places on the Executive, and they have achieved their long-held objective of the effective destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Now, it is their turn to deliver on decommissioning. I strongly support the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell that they should do that.
8 pm
I have one slight reservation about the new clause. The emphasis on implementing the Belfast agreement is not enough. The agreement is woefully inadequate on decommissioning. All that it demands is co-operation with the Decommissioning Commission, and that the political parties use their best endeavours to persuade the paramilitaries to decommission by May 2000. My right hon. Friend argued that the wording of new clause 1 goes further than the Belfast agreement, and I hope that that is so. We want the verifiable, on-going decommissioning of all illegally held paramilitary weapons.
Amendment No. 1 was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and it is supported by my hon. Friends the Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). There is much to commend the amendment. It would offer a belt-and-braces process and it seeks more cast-iron reassurances than new clause 1


that verifiable commissioning will become a reality. I confess that I have a reservation about the proposed new subsection (2B) because the composition and arithmetic of the House is such that one wonders whether all Labour Members would approach a draft order with independent judgment and thought.
However, the key point is found in proposed new subsection (2A), which would require all parties to the Belfast agreement to accept that decommissioning should be a reality. That is vital. It would give a status to the constitutional and democratic parties of Northern Ireland that they rightly deserve. If we can use the old cliché, it would provide a Unionist veto, but that is absolutely right. It has been one of the sadly missing ingredients in the process to date.
Amendment No. 32, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, is self-evidently justified and it is a matter of deep regret that the Government did not instantly respond to the reasonable challenge that he presented. New clause 1 is a significant step in the right direction in that it would establish linkage. However, we come to the heart of the matter in amendment No. 1. It would give a positive role to the parties of Northern Ireland in establishing whether verifiable, genuine decommissioning is on-going.

Mr. Thompson: Together, the new clause and the amendments would link decommissioning with the enactment of the Bill. That is right and I support that principle.
We must consider why the Bill has been before the House for the past two days. When I read remarks that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made about the Bill yesterday, I was amazed that the Government were suddenly worried about some right that we have in Northern Ireland that the people in the rest of the United Kingdom do not have. That is extraordinary. I would rather that there was more concern about the rights that the rest of the United Kingdom has and that Northern Ireland does not have. The Government should be keen expeditiously to amend those and not introduce the one in this Bill, which they say is so necessary.
The Minister said that the Bill would bring into parity not only the House, but the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. However, there seems to be nothing in the Bill that applies to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. That suggests that the Bill was introduced quickly and that it is not well thought out. Judging from yesterday evening's discussions, it is clear that the Government have not considered many aspects of the Bill or its repercussions.
Those of us who live in Northern Ireland were very surprised when we heard about the Bill. We had to ask ourselves what on earth it was about. I suspect that very few Members of the House were aware that the Members of legislatures in the Commonwealth could become Members of the House. We have learned something that we did not know. However, we were not at all conscious that there was any pressure from anywhere that Members of the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland were desirous of sitting here or that Members of this House were desirous of sitting in the Irish Parliament. Therefore, we had to ask a second question: who would benefit from the Bill?
The only people who are likely to benefit from the Bill are Sinn Fein. Of course, the Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) are

elected to the House, but I suspect that, in future, they may wish to sit in the Dail: they need the Bill so that they do not lose their membership here. In other words, the Bill is another act of appeasement to Sinn Fein.
The Minister has refused to say why the Bill was introduced at this time. I suspect that he dare not say why it was introduced now because it was simply introduced to appease Sinn Fein. We all want Sinn Fein to decommission its arms as quickly as possible, and preferably before the end of this month. Therefore, it has sought concession after concession. It has sought the removal of army posts, the drawing of soldiers away from Northern Ireland and more and more. No doubt, the Bill was one of the concessions for which it asked.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has just implied that he believes that the Government, and perhaps the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have discussed the contents of the Bill with a certain party that was elected to the House, but has not chosen to take up its seats. Does he believe that the Government have discussed the Bill's contents with Sinn Fein-IRA and, if they have, why have they not had the courtesy to discuss a constitutional measure with the leaders of other parties representing Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?

Mr. Thompson: I certainly believe that the Government have discussed the Bill with Sinn Fein. I ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and deny that such discussions have taken place.
Why is the Bill being rushed? It is being rushed so that Sinn Fein can be assured that it will be on the statute book before decommissioning starts—if, indeed, it ever does. There can be no other reason why the Government should give up valuable time to spend two days debating the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and deny that, too. We in Northern Ireland believe that the position is as I have described it and that the Government are acting in the hope—probably fruitless—that if Sinn Fein are given concession after concession, they will deliver on decommissioning. In fact, concessions will be made and appeasement will continue, but, at the end of the day, there will be no decommissioning. It appears that the Government never learn.
That is why I believe that it is essential that the linkage set out in the amendments should be made. The Bill should not be brought into force unless there is complete decommissioning and we have seen that Sinn Fein-IRA have had a change of heart and have decided to turn away from violence for good. They must show that they are prepared to give up their arms and decommission them to prove that, in future, they are willing to tread the democratic path. Only in that way should they be able to achieve their ambitions. I shall fully support the amendments.

Mr. Fallon: I share the revulsion expressed by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) at the haste with which the Bill is being taken. We have had stages of Bills concertinaed before, but I cannot recall such a thing being done without a proper explanation being given to the House. The Bill is bad, and the only merit of the first group of amendments is that, if accepted, each of them would, in its own way, delay implementation of the measure.
I do not find all the amendments in the group equally attractive. Of them, I prefer amendment No. 32 on the ground of its clarity. It is self-evident that what is good enough for the Northern Ireland Assembly ought to be good enough for the House of Commons. I hope that the Minister will explain why a protection he thinks it necessary for the House to put in place for the Northern Ireland Assembly should not be applied to the House. We have not yet heard Conservative Front Benchers' views on the amendment, so I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) express full support for it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke to amendment No. 1. I note that, yesterday, he announced that he, too, is opposed to the Bill "in principle". However, he is apparently prepared to accept the Bill passing into law when a number of things happen. When those things have happened and he is satisfied that they have happened, he is—reluctantly, I assume—prepared to move to what he called "the next crucial stage". That puzzles me. If we are opposed to the Bill in principle, why do we have to accept that, when a number of completely unrelated events happen, the principle must be dispensed with and there has to be a next crucial stage? I look to my right hon. Friend to reassure me on that.

Mr. Forth: I was trying to say—obviously, with insufficient clarity—that, despite my having opposed and continuing to oppose the principle of the Bill, I, as a good parliamentarian, have to accept that, because the House has given the Bill its Second Reading and thereby agreed it in principle, it is now our job collectively to improve the Bill as best we can. There can legitimately be a process whereby one opposes a Bill's Second Reading but acknowledges the will of the House and plays one's part in improving the Bill.

Mr. Fallon: I fully understand and accept that. My point was a slightly different one—perhaps my right hon. Friend did not quite catch it. When speaking to amendment No. 1, he said that, if a number of other matters fell into place and events happened in the order and to the extent that he wanted them to happen, we could then move to "the next crucial stage". I do not accept that. If the Bill is bad in principle, how would the amendment enable us to sweep away its unacceptable features and move on?
New clause 1, which stands in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench, is in many ways the weakest of the amendments in the group. For wholly understandable reasons, it links the constitutional change, to which we have strong principled objections that were ably expressed yesterday by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, to the pace of decommissioning. If I were uncharitable, I might criticise the acceptance of the concept of the pace of or "progress" towards decommissioning, because it perpetuates the wholly false assumption that decommissioning is some sort of process. To my mind, decommissioning is not a process, but an act.
The moment we concede that decommissioning is not an act, we are inevitably drawn into agreeing that it is a process, which may be long drawn out or difficult to

define. I reject that and I am disappointed that the new clause implies that such "progress" is tradeable and that its definition is a matter of argument. All we are asking Sinn Fein-IRA to do is decommission. We are not asking them to commit themselves to decommissioning, or to make some sort of progress towards it. We are asking them to do what they agreed to do—decommission.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend says he regards decommissioning as an act. Will he concede that it might consist of a number of acts?

Mr. Fallon: Of course I concede that it might consist of a number of acts, because it involves a number of people. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend, whose speech was easily the most compelling of the speeches so far on the group of amendments, agrees that, if we concede that decommissioning may be a process, we are in danger of being drawn into ill-fitting definitions of pace and progress and what does or does not constitute substantial progress.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, although there might be a number of acts of decommissioning, decommissioning is supposed to be complete by May this year.

Mr. Fallon: I am well aware that the timetable has been set out and that it now presses. That timetable could easily have been complied with. Although decommissioning is a complicated act that involves a certain amount of good faith and a leap being made by several parties in Northern Ireland, it does not have to be drawn out over a couple of years.
I have reservations about the Bill, which were set out yesterday far more eloquently than I could have done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). the shadow Home Secretary, and by the former Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The Bill does not exclude Ministers in the Irish Government from being Members of the House of Commons, and does not guarantee the continuance of the Oath that we have all sworn or affirmed.
If we are to concede that the Bill might somehow become acceptable if there is some progress towards decommissioning, I fear that we are falling into that classic Northern Ireland trap of compromising our principles in return for what at best are promises. I look to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to reassure me.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: My name is associated with new clause 1. Last night I voted with colleagues against the Bill in principle because I believe that it is unnecessary legislation. There is no demand for the Bill among the wider population in Northern Ireland. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) that the Bill has only one purpose—to provide a further concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. It is to facilitate that party. Incidentally, that party has returned to the House of Commons two Members, who refuse to take their seats in the Chamber. Yet we are taking up the valuable time of this place to facilitate those two same Members to take seats in a


foreign Parliament. It makes a mockery of our constitution that we should do such a thing and that the Government propose it.
With other hon. Members, I look to the Government to explain why we need the proposed legislation that is before us. At present, the provision within it is available only to members of legislatures within the Commonwealth. I accept that that is a general point, but it relates to the amendment. The Irish Republic has not rejoined the Commonwealth, so why do we need to provide legislation specifically to facilitate the Irish Republic? I am not aware that the Irish Government have been calling for the Bill, so it must be Sinn Fein-IRA that is involved.
There has been reference to the Good Friday agreement. Perhaps I am unique in this debate because I was involved in the negotiations in that agreement until the end. That being so, I have some knowledge of the agreement. I know that the provisions that are contained in the Bill were never discussed during the negotiations. We are told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of my party, that they were not part of the recent review that was carried our under the chairmanship of Senator Mitchell. Therefore, we must conclude that the Bill is coming forward because the Government have done a back-door deal with Sinn Fein-IRA. That is why it is important to provide linkage between the proposed legislation—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The House of Commons will acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was deeply involved in the Belfast agreement negotiations. Perhaps he will try to enlighten us by explaining why in yesterday's proceedings the Minister said:
Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement"?—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 28.]
That suggests that there were discussions of some sort taking place, otherwise the Bill and the links to which we have referred would not have been envisaged. Can the hon. Gentleman help us?

Mr. Donaldson: There are linkages proposed within the Belfast Agreement, not least with the British-Irish Council, which brings together not only the Westminster Parliament but various legislatures and assemblies throughout the United Kingdom, together with the legislature within the Irish Republic. There were discussions about linkages at that level. I think that the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary group was discussed also. However, as far as I am aware, there was no mention and discussion of the specific legislation that is before us, and it is not part of the agreement. Therefore, we must consider where it fits into the political process in Northern Ireland, and the timing. Why, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone asked, are the Government in such haste to bring forward the Bill and to get it through Parliament? The Committee is entitled to an answer to these reasonable questions.
I appreciate the comments that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has made about decommissioning, but I refer him to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, which includes provisions about a process of decommissioning and defines decommissioning in those terms. I agree with the

hon. Gentleman that decommissioning is in itself an act. Unfortunately, under the Belfast agreement it became a process, which is set out in the Arms Decommissioning Act. We are told that the process begins with the appointment of an interlocutor by the various terrorist organisations. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that that step was taken as recently as December 1999, a year and a half after the Belfast agreement was signed. So it is a process, whether we like it or not. I would much rather it were more narrowly defined in terms of an act.
The linkage between the Bill and its enactment and progress on decommissioning is important. Irrespective of whether the Government care to admit it, the Bill is linked to the political process in Northern Ireland. The problem with that process, if I may call it that, is that in terms of the so-called confidence-building measures that are an integral part of the agreement, it has been a one-way street of concession after concession to the republican movement without requiring something in return.
It has been said that it is time to draw the line. It is right for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to press the amendment and to create a linkage between disarmament and the enactment of the Bill, even though I do not like the measure and do not accept the need for it.
Given the Government's majority in this place, I accept that the Bill's passage in inevitable. That being so, we must build in safeguards. Why is that? Is that just to be stubborn? No. We must protect the people of Northern Ireland by providing some leverage in the process so that we might achieve the disarmament that we have been seeking. The Government have been far too weak in pursuing the republican movement, and it is time that they started to get tough with the leaders of republicanism.
The people of Northern Ireland are dejected, depressed and demoralised, not least because of what the Government proposed last week for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They feel that it is time that instead of pandering to the whim of the abstentionists in this place, they should listen to the voice of the democratic majority. We are saying that people need safeguards, and we believe that the new clause provides a reasonable one. We seek to extract from the republican movement something in return for a constitutional concession specifically for it. We are talking about a party that represents 18 per cent. of a small region of the United Kingdom.
I urge the Government to consider accepting the amendment, not because it is designed to destroy the agreement or the process but because it is an act that is designed to bring about progress on the one issue that is capable of destroying the entire process, which is that of disarmament.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on tabling new clause 1, which cuts to the heart of the Bill. The measure is being rushed through in an extraordinary manner for one reason: because Sinn Fein wants it. The new clause is important because it acknowledges that, and declares that, if Sinn Fein wants the Bill, it must pay a price—that of decommissioning. Without the new clause and the price it demands, the Bill will become what my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)


describes as another step on the shameful road of appeasement. The new clause is important because it names the price.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Like several of my hon. Friends, I voted against the Bill last night. There were 19 of us, and I suspect that more hon. Members would have done that, had they realised the precise implications and potential consequences of the Bill.
I was joined in the Lobby by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who also voted against the measure on principle. I was interested in his assertion that there was no public demand for the Bill. Not only is there no public demand for it, there is no demand for it among Labour Members. No Labour Member has spoken to support the measure. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made an extremely valuable contribution, but not in support of the Bill. She acknowledges the effect of the amendments on a measure about which she feels unhappy. In such circumstances, it is astonishing that the Government attempt to drive the Bill through. One or two Labour Members have come to listen to the debate, but no Labour Member has sought to attract your attention, Mr. Lord, to speak in support of the Government.
I hope that, when the witching hour of 10 o'clock approaches, the Government will not try to move the 10 o'clock motion to enable further consideration of the Bill tonight. That would be inappropriate because the measure is not urgent. As we progress, more and more deficiencies are revealed. Yet the Government provide no adequate, convincing explanation of why the Bill should be passed, let alone why it should be rushed through.
If the Bill remains unamended, there will be suspicions throughout the country that the Government are involved in some sort of squalid deal. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley and others suggested that the Government have made a squalid deal to support some arrangement with Sinn Fein. In the light of the Minister's explanations, one can be driven to no other conclusion. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) hit the nail on the head when he said that there were only two explanations for the Government's behaviour: that the Government chanced on the measure to fill a bit of spare time; or that the Bill was part of a deal, which had to be made. Ministers deny that the Bill is part of a deal, but they are singularly ineffective at explaining why it has been brought before the House. They have failed to convince us and, I suspect, the only Labour Member who intervened in the debate.
The amendments give the Government an opportunity to say that they understand the fears about the legislation and how it will be viewed in the country, and that the amendments are reasonable. If the Government accept them, they will at least make some effort to reassure the country that the measure is not part of a squalid deal and that they have not traded entitlement to membership of the House for decommissioning. The Government should accept the amendments.

Mr. Nigel Evans: If the Bill was supposed to be a carrot to encourage decommissioning, and decommissioning does not occur but the Bill is enacted, the measure will remain an Act.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. There are no conditions attached to the Bill. If it is part of a deal, the law-abiding people, as always, will deliver first, while the holders of illegal weapons deliver nothing. In the so-called process, not one ounce of Semtex, and not one bullet or weapon has been handed in. The Minister should understand the strength of feeling on this side of the Committee: we, who have seen our friends cut down by murderers, are asked to go along with the process when there is no evidence that Sinn Fein is prepared to abide by the agreement that it signed.

Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman insists on talking about that side of the Committee. It is important to emphasise that the anxiety that he expresses is shared generally in the country and on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Howarth: That intervention does not surprise me. The right hon. Gentleman has appeared in the Chamber only recently and I warmly welcome his words, which will be widely welcomed in the country. I do not suggest that there are no reservoirs of anxiety on the other side. I pointed out only that there was no evidence of such anxiety, apart from the contribution of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has shown that there is cross-party concern about the matter. The Minister should take note of that.
Symbolism is important when discussing Northern Ireland. We must tread carefully; not allowing the Bill to pass unamended will convey a clear message and an important signal. Even if we do not support the Bill, we must accept that it has been voted on, but we should not allow it to continue unamended. If we did that, we would send the wrong signals to those who have the power to decommission but have shown no signs of exercising it. The amendment is an opportunity for Ministers to make the position clear, and I hope that they will take it.
It is an enormous privilege to serve in the House. All of us have struggled to get to the House—perhaps not all of us, as some of us arrived here unexpectedly, as I did in 1983. However, most hon. Members take membership of the House seriously and regard it as a great privilege to serve in the oldest Parliament in the world, which dates back to 1265. It may be unrealistic to imagine that any member of the Irish Parliament would be prepared to swear an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. Nevertheless, the Government are seeking with this Bill to give away the right to sit in this hallowed place without getting a single thing in return. That cheapens membership of the House and shows yet again how much contempt and how little respect the Government have for the House of Commons.
Many references have been made to yesterday's debate. Most of the amendments were available only today and it is discourteous to the Committee that important amendments were not made available for consideration by right hon. and hon. Members in advance. We should have more time to consider them.
I am genuinely mystified as to why the Government are pursuing this Bill. I do not think that they are being totally dishonourable. I certainly do not think that my namesake, the Minister, is a dishonourable man. However, we cannot see where the Government are coming from. I am struggling. I searched yesterday's Hansard and saw that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said:
It is time to build a sounder basis to our institutional relationships and to provide a basis on which we can proceed, as two islands just off the mainland of Europe, with many common links, historical and otherwise, between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic—a basis for ensuring that those closer links are given some institutional background. I believe that that explains this fairly modest Bill."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 29.]
If the Bill is not part of the discussions that took place in Belfast, of which the hon. Member for Lagan Valley had no knowledge—we were told that parliamentary links between the various legislatures were discussed at that time—we are told that it is to provide some linkage between the institutions.
The Irish institutions have not been particularly helpful to this country. Time and gain, we have seen attempts to extradite people wanted for serious crimes in this country. Whatever the actions of the Government of Ireland, their institutions have been singularly unhelpful in enabling us to bring those persons to justice before our courts.

Mr. Brady: Nor, it seems, does the Dail see any merit in the Minister's argument. Otherwise, we might see some reciprocity.

Mr. Howarth: I believe that we shall deal with reciprocity in a later amendment.
Amendment No. 1 is rather more comprehensive than the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). It is unquestionably linked specifically to the terminology of the Belfast agreement. Amendment No. 10 nevertheless makes the point that I sought to make and sends a clear signal that we want some measure of decommissioning. I prefer amendment No. 1, but am happy to go along with amendment No. 10 and new clause 1.
Amendment No. 32, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), is also worthy of consideration and I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). If it is good enough for the Northern Ireland Assembly to have protection against terrorism, it is certainly good enough for this House. I say this to the Minister: if you will just turn to your right—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Howarth: I apologise, Mr. Lord.
If the Minister were to turn to his right, he would see at the entrance to this Chamber the coat of arms of Airey Neave—a Member of this House who was blown up by terrorists in pursuit of objectives in Northern Ireland. It is an affront to suggest that we should allow membership of the House to people who, if they have not committed the same crimes, hold similar aspirations. We owe it to the memory of Airey Neave to state in the Bill that nobody

engaged in terrorism should be entitled to membership of the House of Commons in the way that it is phrased in amendment No. 32. If it comes to a vote, I shall certainly support that amendment.

Mr. Oaten: The propositions are that there would be a link through the Bill to decommissioning and to a denouncement of terrorism. Both propositions come from the same perspective. Liberal Democrat Members are as frustrated as any party at the delay in making progress with decommissioning and wish to see it proceed as speedily as possible.
Tempting arguments were made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who suggested that the Bill should have some link with decommissioning, to speed the process. In negotiations, the Government have held a few cards that they could play at various points, but they appear to be running out of cards. The Bill might be another card to be played. Tonight's debate has not cleared up when it should be played.
Would coupling decommissioning with the Bill help the peace process? I am disappointed that we have yet to receive clear guidance from the Minister. It is unhelpful that the Government have not been open about the process. There is a nervousness on all sides that some kind of deal has been done. If one has been done, we would judge it on its merits. We accept that the whole process has been risky. If the deal is that the Bill has to pass before decommissioning, I may accept that that is another risk on a difficult path. Being unclear whether that is the case and where the process is going is not helpful. Although it may be tempting to link the Bill and accept some of the amendments, I and others on the Opposition Benches are left to take on trust that the Government know what they are doing—[Laughter.]—and that they are doing this in the interests of peace.

Mr. Forth: I am slightly surprised at what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is it not at least possible that his party would know a lot more about the Government's motivations through one of the rather sinister Committees on which the hon. Gentleman's colleagues sit cheek-by-jowl—indeed, in bed—with Government Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows more than he cares to reveal at this stage and is just bluffing.

Mr. Oaten: I assure the Committee that the pillow talk does not go anywhere near Northern Ireland. The issue is whether or not linking decommissioning with the Bill would help the process. Although the Government are not being open and clear, some discussions have taken place. We must take it at face value that, broadly speaking, it would not be helpful at this stage to link decommissioning with the Bill.

Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that the process will be harmed if the Government have done a deal with Sinn Fein on linking the Bill with decommissioning and that link is written into the Bill. I cannot understand that. If we accept the amendment, surely the link will be set in stone. If they have come to an arrangement, it will not be damaged if it is included in the Bill.

Mr. Oaten: That is a chicken-and-egg situation. It would be helpful if the Minister explained, but I sense


that the Bill may need to be passed before decommissioning can take place. The amendment proposes an alternative that is the other way round. That is the difference.

Mr. Brady: rose—

Mr. Oaten: I shall not give way. I want to make progress on amendment No. 32.
On terrorism, the proposition is that the Bill should be linked with a statement from Members moving into the House making it clear that they disown terrorism. That is another tempting proposition, but I return to the point that I made in an intervention: an important principle would be broken because those individuals would have stood for election and been democratically elected. We would be saying that democratically elected individuals could not take their seats.

Mr. MacKay: Were we wrong to pass such legislation on the Northern Ireland Assembly where, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, no one can take his seat unless he swears that he has given up violence for good? Is there to be one law for Northern Ireland and another for the rest of the United Kingdom? I think not.

Mr. Oaten: The issue could be considered in terms of the ability of individuals to stand for election in the first place and what they say in their statement before they stand. I am uneasy about the principle of a person being elected and conditions being attached to his election. We may impose the condition of renouncement of terrorism, but what other conditions and aspects could be imposed? The principle is dangerous.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a predictable Liberal "on the one hand, on the other hand" effort. Does he not understand the difference between democratic elections and trying to destroy a society or a Government by force and by terrorism? The whole point is that those who take part in a democratic election say, "I will foreswear the Armalite; I will go for the ballot box." People cannot use the ballot box and the Armalite. Surely he must understand that.

Mr. Oaten: I understand that point, but the process of standing on a platform and being democratically elected would be overturned by amendment No. 32 because it concerns a person who has already been elected. I would have had more sympathy for it if it related to whether a person was able to stand for election in the first place.

Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Oaten: I want to conclude my remarks.

Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Oaten: No, I want to conclude my remarks.
We are uneasy about being unable to back the amendment. The Government could have been more open with us on those issues, but, in the interests of making the peace process work, we are prepared to back them and reject the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) because, although I am not sure that he has given the Committee any true knowledge of where the Liberal Democrats stand on the Bill, he has at least suggested that they are not particularly happy with it and we are grateful for that.
The Bill is an important constitutional measure and some truly valuable contributions have been made. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney)—sadly, he is not in his place—drew attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is also not in her place, although she has been present for most of the debate. Her contribution was a rapier thrust at the chest of the Government because it concentrated the minds of hon. Members on the purpose of the Bill.
I remind the Committee that the hon. Lady has been a Member of the House for many years, is one of the most senior Labour Members and is highly regarded across the House. She asked Ministers to be honest, open and transparent about the purpose of the Bill. I make a plea to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: I hope that he will be open, honourable and transparent with the Committee and will tell us precisely the purpose of the Bill, why the Government have introduced it now and why they have rushed it through in such a hurry, allowing inadequate time for the consideration of amendments. Clearly the Opposition are in a sizeable minority. We therefore have to accept last night's decision to give the Bill a Second Reading.
I am opposed to the Bill in principle and on principle, and there is a difference. It is fundamentally flawed, it is unnecessary and it leads members of the Committee to hold strong suspicions about its objective. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire made an outstanding contribution. He naturally advised the Committee that he had served as a Northern Ireland Minister and of course he has a pedigree that connects him directly to Northern Ireland. I very much value, respect and appreciate his views and he touched on all the important issues relating to the amendments.
I also commend the speeches made by official Ulster Unionist party Members, whom I describe as my hon. Friends. In my view they always have been. I have taken a strong interest in Northern Ireland affairs ever since I was elected to the House 29 years ago and am happy to advise the Committee that the first time I voted against my party was on the prorogation of Stormont in 1972. I believe that that was the most insidious form of surrender to terrorism, the enunciation of which I heard from the mouth of the then Conservative Prime Minister. From that moment, we have never stopped making concessions to terrorism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) referred to the coat of arms that we see over one of the entrances to this Chamber of the House of Commons, the coat of arms erected on the instruction and at the wish not only of the House, but of the then Speaker: the coat of arms of Airey Neave. I feel very


emotional about my hon. Friend's reference to Airey Neave, because I was the last Member of Parliament to speak to Airey Neave before he went off to his tailor that Friday morning and before I went up to my constituency by car. It would be an insult to his memory if we allowed anyone to enter this place as a Member of the House of Commons who had not renounced terrorism and a wish to achieve their objectives through armed conflict or terrorism, whether by the bomb or by the bullet. So I am speaking strongly in favour of amendment No. 32, tabled by my very good hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I believe he is absolutely right to have this matter placed on the face of the Bill.
9 pm
I repeat that I do not like the Bill. I do not believe that it is necessary. But now that it has had a Second Reading, I believe that amendment No. 10, with which other amendments and new clause 1 are linked, is absolutely correct. It would be improper, it would be immoral, it would be dangerous and it would be wrong for this measure to take effect before decommissioning had taken place.
In this debate we have had discussions about the action of decommissioning. The excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) highlighted that. Then the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) drew attention to another piece of legislation in which the phrase "the process of decommissioning" formed a part.
I am sure it is not necessary to remind the Committee that decommissioning was really the essence of the package put forward, I think, three years ago by Senator George Mitchell. Of course, we know that at that time no progress was going to be made towards a peace settlement at least until decommissioning had started. We know now that Sinn Fein has achieved a considerable amount since then. Not only has not a single weapon been decommissioned by Sinn Fein—or a round of ammunition or a pound of Semtex—but the party is now in the Northern Ireland Executive; it is in part of an institution of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend also recall that one of the Mitchell principles was that all parties to talks, let alone any further stage, would have renounced violence for good? Does he not think it might be helpful to remind the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), of that? I know that he was not in the House then, but I am sure he understands that it is a pretty good principle, which has been established for some time.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, but I believe I would be straining your patience and tolerance, Mr. Lord, if I went back to everything that has occurred since Senator George Mitchell came on the scene and decommissioning became such an important part, supposedly, of making any progress whatsoever. I do not need to mention again matters referred to by the hon. Members for Lagan Valley and, I believe, for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson)—not only that Sinn Fein has achieved what I have already indicated, but that the RUC is being decimated; I used the phrase in a supplementary question to the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland,

and I believe that the RUC's death warrant has been announced by the Government. Certainly the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been devastated by what I see as the insult that has been delivered to it, only a few weeks after it was rightly awarded—because I believe it is the finest, most courageous and most professional police force in the world—the George Cross. Just a few weeks after that it learned that in due course it is to be deprived of its name, its oath is to be changed and the whole composition of the force is to be dramatically altered and its numbers reduced again. That was one of the purposes of Sinn Fein-IRA.
So what we in the Opposition are seeking to do—I believe that some of what I am saying is shared by Liberal Democrat Members—is to see some safeguards put into the Bill, however undesirable it is in principle to us. The House, in its wisdom or otherwise, because of the Government's very sizeable majority, gave the Bill a Second Reading. I believe that it is absolutely right that if the suspicions of the Government's acts and intentions are not to grow, these amendments need to be included in the Bill in one form or another.
I nevertheless make a plea to Ministers. Not one hon. Member has spoken in favour of the Bill. I hope that, if democracy is to mean anything—and to me it is very important—Ministers will heed what I consider to be the properly founded, well considered arguments of Opposition Members, and will make a gesture of some kind. What, otherwise, is the House of Commons about? Why have this debate? People are asking why the time should be expended if the Government are not prepared to listen to the—I think—well argued cases advanced by Opposition Members.
I still believe in this place, and to me it is valuable that people out there still believe that this place is valuable. Are the Government going to reduce its credibility by forcing the Bill through without any proper, detailed, open response, or are they going to respond to the genuine concern that has been expressed, reply positively and accept, if not the wording of all the amendments, at least the intention behind some of them?
It is not often that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire comes to the Chamber, as an ex-Minister, to make speeches such as the one that he made tonight. His knowledge is considerable; his commitment to Northern Ireland and to the peace process is also considerable, respected and well known. On his behalf, and on behalf of all Opposition Members who have spoken, I make this plea to the Government: please be honest with us. Please do right by the people of this country who believe in justice, democracy and law and order. Do not forget the overwhelming majority of peace-loving, law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland, for whom we seek to secure the best deal—and the Bill, as it stands, is not the best deal.

Mr. Robathan: I apologise for my absence for an hour earlier.
I shall be brief: I do not want to repeat all the excellent arguments that have been presented by my friends and colleagues. But I think the debate has shown that the Government, if they do not already know it, should study the old adage: "Act in haste, repent at leisure". The Bill, ridiculously, is being rushed through in two days, allowing hon. Members no chance to table amendments


or even to think about what the Government are trying to say. My hon. Friends have been poking holes in the failings of the Government's argument throughout today's debate.
I was delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that if the amendment was not accepted, the Opposition would not give the Bill a fair wind. I did not oppose Second Reading yesterday, because I felt that we should at least have a chance to amend the Bill. Perhaps the Government will accept amendments, and perhaps the Bill will then be passed—although, frankly, I think that it is pretty much of a dog's breakfast. It strikes at the heart of much of our constitution; it is ill conceived and badly thought out.
Let me say a little about the constitutional change that the Bill proposes. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) drew attention to the terrible mistake of introducing constitutional changes in this manner, but I think we can all see from what has been said today that the Bill is purely a sop to the IRA. It has been put together with Sinn Fein. No one else wants it; no Labour Member is prepared to stand up and talk about it, because none of them wants it—if they even know what it is about.
The Government are giving away yet another card. As the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) pointed out, they have laid their cards on the table, but what are they getting in return? What cards do they have up their sleeve to use against IRA-Sinn Fein, who are inextricably linked and who still maintain huge arsenals of weapons?
One has to question—I do not like to do so—the Government's motives. Why do they want that constitutional change? What is it for? Is it just that they hate the United Kingdom Parliament? Do they hold the UK Parliament in contempt? They do not treat it well; we all know that. Even the most loyal Labour Back Bencher knows that. What is the Bill about? What are the Government about this afternoon? I hope that we will be able to ask that question for a long time after today; we shall have to discuss the matter on some other occasion, too.
I turn to decommissioning, which is the point of most of the amendments. I much prefer amendment No. 1, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), to amendment No. 10, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), because amendment No. 1 is absolutely clear. It says that the Belfast agreement has to be put into force completely before we can proceed. In other words, all decommissioning would have to take place.
Those of us who were unhappy in some part with the compromises that have had to be made for peace in the past three or four years would be much happier if amendment No. 1 were accepted. We need an absolutely clear-cut guarantee that those to whom concessions have been made—Sinn Fein and the IRA—will make some concessions in return. I would like all weapons to be destroyed, not sealed in some bunker that might yet be under the control of terrorists, or indeed of some dissident terrorist group. I should like weapons to be destroyed before we give any more concessions to the IRA.
In the last fortnight, we have had several concessions. We have had the destruction, or emasculation of the RUC, the name change and everything that goes with that. We have had the Bill. Hon. Members may not even be aware that, in another Bill, we have a clause to exempt Sinn Fein from the rule to stop political parties receiving donations from foreign countries. It should be called the Noraid clause, but I will not stray further down that road because I know that it would be out of order.
I said that I would be brief and I have been, but I just wish to add my voice to those of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who have all made such good points, saying that the Bill should not proceed unless it is fundamentally amended.

Mr. Brady: I have been in the Chamber throughout the debate. It is probably one of the shabbiest episodes that I have witnessed as a Member of Parliament, and not only because of how the Government introduced the Bill, which is of questionable worth. They introduced it in a hurry, on two consecutive days. The whole thing has been handled in a way that is utterly unacceptable in a civilised Parliament, especially when Ministers are prepared to say that there is no emergency. There is no reason why it should be done in such haste.
The debate has also been shabby in that, with the honourable exceptions of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who have indicated at least some capacity for sentient thought, not a word has been uttered by Labour Members to justify what they are doing. Not a word has been uttered in criticism of the sensible and moderate amendments tabled by Opposition Members, whether from the official Opposition or the official Unionists.
I can only come to the conclusion that no plausible and honest argument can be advanced by those Members who oppose the amendments. I was confirmed in that view when I heard the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). He at least had the decency to say something, but he did not advance a plausible argument against the amendments. As I said when I intervened during his speech, I cannot see the logic of the argument that, if the Government have done a deal to link the Bill with decommissioning of terrorist weapons, it must not be put on to the face of the Bill because it would cause difficulties.
Including the deal in the Bill would accomplish precisely the opposite effect. It would not prevent the Bill's passage, but simply create certain safeguards involving the legislation's commencement date or the behaviour of Members who might be affected by its provisions.

Mr. Oaten: The problem is that we cannot make a judgment because we have not been told about the deal, if there was one.

Mr. Brady: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, and agree that there is a problem. However, when Ministers demonstrate a total lack of openness and candour, it is not incumbent on hon. Members to accept what they say. Indeed, it is precisely then, when Ministers will not tell us what they are doing and show no respect


for the House, that hon. Members—whether Labour, Ulster Unionist, Liberal Democrat or Conservative—should do what we have been sent here by our constituents to do. We must think, be cautious and use some common sense in legislating, particularly on the most sensitive matters in relation to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the deal that everyone is talking about is the Good Friday agreement; that no other deal should be necessary to achieve decommissioning; that decommissioning should start without the Bill; and that that is why we need to pass the amendments?

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. I do not believe that Ministers are rejecting the amendments—they seem to be rejecting them but perhaps they are playing us along for a few hours to keep us in suspense—because they have done a deal or secured something in return for what they propose to give away. They are simply locked into a process of giving things away, of letting things go by default and of expecting nothing in return from those who, sadly, to date, have given no sign of wishing to move forward to genuine peace and disarmament.

Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend remember from his history lessons the danegeld and how one just had to keep on paying it, but received nothing in return?

Mr. Brady: I remember it well. However, I do not intend to be diverted down that historical road, pertinent as it may be. There are many examples of appeasement in history, whether it be the danegeld or more recently, and we know that appeasement does not work.
The Government, in proceeding with the process over almost two years, have shown that appeasement does not work. Ministers have never insisted on delivery of something in return from Sinn Fein, but consistently conceded more. They have never stood up or said what they should have said—that the people of Northern Ireland, and people across the United Kingdom, wish to achieve objectives and a very important prize. The Government do not have the courage or backbone to insist on moving towards achieving those goals.
In his excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) dealt with the importance of conditionality and of including that vital principle in the Bill.
I do not intend to speak at length to the amendments in this group, but should like to deal briefly with the three key subgroups of amendments in the group.
Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 deal with the importance of the principle of negotiation and of conditionality, and of ensuring that we receive something in return for what we give away.
Amendment No. 1 insists that there should be full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, and not some fudge, half-baked deal or failure to implement the agreement. It is also vital because it would ensure that implementation could not proceed without the agreement of both Houses of Parliament. That brings us back to the crucial point that the Bill must enjoy proper democratic assent. The Government cannot get away with sitting mute and not attempting to defend their proposals.
Finally, amendment No. 32 is absolutely vital. The other amendments deal with the commencement of the measures, and the point at which it will be permissible for Members of the Dail also to sit in the House of Commons. However, they do not provide permanent security for this House—[Interruption.] A rather frightened mouse has run across the Floor, Mr. Lord, just as I was expounding the argument that I smell a rat with the legislation.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There are some things in this Chamber that the occupant of the Chair cannot control. I suggest that we carry on with the debate in the usual way.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Is not the mouse an indication to the Government that we should not let vermin into the House?

Mr. Robathan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. Do not Standing Orders state that no animals other than guide dogs will be allowed into the House?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I suggest that we continue with the debate.

Mr. Brady: That intervention by the frightened mouse can be likened to the behaviour of Ministers, who have failed to stand up for what they should be fighting for. They have shown neither fibre nor substance in handling the negotiations entrusted to them.
Finally, it is crucial that future hon. Members whom the Bill will allow to join the House should disavow terrorism. Amendment No. 32 is the only proposal that would guarantee permanent security. I hope that decommissioning of weapons begins or that there is substantial progress to that end. However, it will remain possible that those who resorted to violence in the past could return to it.
In those circumstances, the conditionality that would be introduced by new clause 1 or amendment No. 10 would not give that vital protection. However, amendment No. 32 would give some permanent guarantee, in the event of a wholesale return to violence and terrorism affecting the whole of the United Kingdom and not just Northern Ireland, that those who refused to disavow violent intervention would not be allowed to sit in this House. It would mean that we would accept only those who believed in democracy and wished to participate in our democratic process.

Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has just criticised me for not taking part in the debate at some earlier juncture. However, he will accept that the whole point is that Ministers responding to a debate listen to what hon. Members have to say. That is why I have sat here patiently noting all the points that have been raised. I intend to respond to them as fully as possible.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has asked me to be candid, and that is my intention. I believe that it is inappropriate for me to be on the receiving end of criticism for having shown disrespect to the House in some way. At least three right hon. and hon. Members who have been present for all or most of the debate will attest to the fact that on every occasion on which I address


the House and respond to issues raised by Opposition Front-Bench Members, I take the House very seriously. I am sure that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) would accept that. I see that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) accepts that. The criticism that has been levelled at me is slightly unfair.

Mr. Brady: I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be a courteous man and a courteous Minister. What I believe to be wrong is the disrespect that the Government have shown for the House in the way in which they have handled this piece of legislation.

Mr. Howarth: I will demonstrate in a moment why I do not believe that that criticism can be sustained. Certainly, some of the criticism, including that made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West was directed at me, and I think it appropriate and relevant for me to respond.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I, for one, would not have wished the hon. Gentleman to take the comments personally. He is at the Dispatch Box, representing the Government, and the criticism was of the Government. I made it, as did others, and I do not resile from it.
The hon. Gentleman said that he has listened carefully to the debate. Does he now have any sense of the anger and unhappiness that those interventions sought to convey to him about the taking of business today?

Mr. Howarth: I will address, as far as I can, all the concerns that have been expressed during the course of the debate. 1 am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that I will do that in due course. Of course, I have listened very carefully to what everyone has said. In no way would I make the criticism that any of the speakers who have taken part in these Committee proceedings have done so with anything less than seriousness. People felt that they had to make their points and, even if I do not agree with them, I recognise that they were made with all seriousness and proper concern.
I want to begin by dealing with some of the general points made in the debate; then I will turn to more specific points that arise directly from the amendments. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) both said in different ways that the process so far had been all take and no give. Well, that is hardly the case. For the first time in 25 years, a devolved Government have been returned to Northern Ireland. That is an achievement. For the first time in 60 or so years, there is now agreement on the constitutional issues, and articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution have been amended. Those amendments will stand, regardless of what happens to the institutions. Of course, the 1985 agreement, about which many Ulster Unionists of different kinds had grave reservations—to put it mildly—has finally been replaced. So it is simply not true to say that there have been no achievements. That is not to say that there is not more to be achieved.

Mr. MacKay: I am obliged to the Under-Secretary for giving way. Let me remind him of the context of my remark that there has been all take and no give by the

paramilitaries. I said that the two Governments, British and Irish, had fulfilled all their obligations, including many of those that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I went on to say that the constitutional parties—Unionist, nationalist, alliance—had fulfilled all their obligations, including many of the those that the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned, which I agree are important achievements.
In return, the paramilitaries—whether republican or loyalist—who signed up to the Belfast agreement have failed to fulfil their obligations. They had two particular obligations: the first was to decommission all their illegally held arms and explosives by May; the second was to end violence for good. That is what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I mean by all take and no give. That is the point that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Howarth: I was not trying to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I accept entirely the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of their remarks. I was about to draw attention to the matters on which there are still large reasons for concern and I shall talk about them in due course.
I stand by the fact that there is no direct link between the Bill and the agreement—it is a matter of context, as I tried to make clear in an earlier intervention. The agreement was negotiated with most—although not all—the parties in Northern Ireland; it was subsequently endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, by the people of southern Ireland.
There has been progress on all three longstanding, fundamental Unionist objectives—rightly held by Unionists to be of deep importance. That has been achieved through the courageous leadership of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). In his speech, the right hon. Member for Bracknell referred to all the people who played a major role in bringing us to where we are today. I concur with, and add to, the list that he gave.
I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is in his place, as he was on the list read out by the right hon. Member for Bracknell, whom I join in paying tribute to the role played by the former Prime Minister in beginning the process. I have referred to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who played an important role in the matter when she was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and to the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Everyone has put their hands to the pump; we have all tried to do the best possible for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will give way in a moment.
I acknowledge that other elements are less welcome. However, we should not close our eyes to the substantial progress that has taken place as a result of the Good Friday agreement.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell and others, including the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for East


Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred to the modalities of decommissioning—the how, where and when. That is central to the Opposition's main amendment, which has been the subject of much of the Committee's debate. The whole Committee would probably agree that the point of decommissioning is that arms are decommissioned to the satisfaction of the Independent Commission on Decommissioning.
The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 makes it clear that the commission has to supervise decommissioning according to schemes that have been made. The Act requires that such schemes may include a range of methods of destruction, defined under section 10 as
making permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable".
Let me simply point out what is stated in the legislation. We must wait and see what the commission reports; I shall comment further on that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is not in the Chamber. At the risk of incurring some hon. Members' wrath, I wondered why the hon. Gentleman had been stirred to take part in the debate, as he was not in the Chamber—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman often takes part in such debates.

Mr. Howarth: He is quite entitled to do so, although he was not here on Second Reading yesterday. On listening to and then reading the speech that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made yesterday, I realised that he had made the fatal mistake—at least so far as the hon. Member for Stone is concerned, of mentioning the word "Europe". I suspect that that may have played some part in tempting the hon. Gentleman into the Chamber.
The hon. Gentleman tabled amendment No. 32. If it were passed, someone elected to the House of Commons who was also a Member of the Irish Parliament, had also been a paramilitary and had not disavowed terrorism would be disqualified. The difficulty is that it would not apply to someone elected to the House of Commons who was not a Member of the Irish Parliament, so it would set a different standard for different people.
The other difficulty that arises from amendment No. 32 is that there would have to be some means of deciding who had or had not been a paramilitary. In some cases, by virtue of the fact that the person had been convicted of something, that might be obvious, but we do not have an exhaustive list of everyone who may have been a paramilitary at some time in the past.

Mr. MacKay: I thank the Under-Secretary, who, with characteristic courtesy, has given way whenever requested. He and I strongly support the setting up of the Assembly. He and I know that we both supported in the House the legislation that set up the Assembly. He may correct me if I am wrong, but my memory of that legislation was that everyone elected to the Assembly had to swear an oath that they had given up violence for good—not just members of Sinn Fein but members of the SDLP, the Alliance party and the Ulster Unionist party. That seems an interesting precedent. Whereas, as

currently drafted, amendment No. 32 may not be acceptable, it has interesting implications and possibilities for the House.

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and if the precedent that he referred to existed, he might have a stronger case. Unfortunately, he is wrong. The pledge that he referred to is required only of Northern Ireland Ministers. No such oath or declaration is required on the part of Assembly Members, so I rather think that his—

Mr. MacKay: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mr. Howarth: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish dealing with the intervention that he has already made, I will allow him the opportunity to come back. It is an interesting point, but he is simply referring to a precedent that does not exist. However—

Sir Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Duncan Smith: Give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Howarth: It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, to instruct me.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that every hon. Member who takes the Oath by implication denounces terrorism?

Mr. Howarth: So why—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who came into the debate rather belatedly and contributed to it briefly from the Back Benches, would bear with me, I was dealing specifically with the arguments made by the hon. Member for Stone. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Stone was speaking, so he will forgive me if I do not take any more sedentary interventions from him.
The group of amendments before us effectively seeks to put on the face of the Bill a direct linkage between the lifting of disqualification and decommissioning. I can see why the Opposition might want to make that linkage but, as I argued on Second Reading, it would be wrong to make that direct linkage between the Bill and that issue. I shall explain why.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) supported the Government's position on that matter; and, from a slightly different angle, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a similar point.
Let me make the Government's position as clear as I can. We entirely share the view of the Opposition, and of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, that decommissioning is an essential part of the process—not an option; a part of the process. The process of decommissioning is being overseen by General de Chastelain's commission.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell paid proper tribute to General de Chastelain and the other distinguished members of the commission for their independence and professionalism. I hope that the whole House would accept also that the commission brings good faith to its work. For those reasons, a great deal of trust


is put in the hands of the commission. For that reason, when the commission makes its report on progress—as it will by the end of the month—it will be a document of authority. The hon. Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) seem to believe that some other kind of process is involved. However, that is the process.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made it clear that decommissioning is an essential part of the process. If it is clear from General de Chastelain's report that the paramilitaries are in default on decommissioning, there will be serious consequences. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that in circumstances where the commission has reported that there has not been proper progress, the operation of the various political institutions—the Assembly, the Executive, the north-south bodies and the British-Irish Council—will cease immediately. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend, who is sitting alongside me, stands entirely by what he has said on this issue, and that he takes the matter seriously indeed.

Mr. Field: Is not it true that when the Good Friday accord was debated here, it was generally accepted with considerable enthusiasm and many of us did not look carefully enough at the details? We thought that as concessions were made, there would be clear concessions on decommissioning. Although there was a timetable for decommissioning, it was not linked specifically to some of the concessions that some in this House have found so difficult to accept. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Minister was right to emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said from the Dispatch Box about those actions that will follow if the decommissioning report is given to the House and the progress that we expect has not been not made. Surely it is at that point that the House should make its view felt about what next should happen, and we should not try retrospectively—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but his intervention is far too long.

Mr. George Howarth: I thank my right hon. Friend for what I think was intended to be a helpful intervention. I hope that we can all agree on the fundamental importance of decommissioning.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I hope that the Minister understands the importance of what he has said—especially in Northern Ireland. If the Government are saying that if the IRA is in default on decommissioning by the end of the month when General de Chastelain reports, the Government will suspend the institutions, that is a significant statement. The Minister says that the general must report that there has been proper progress. Would he care to define proper progress in terms of decommissioning, as that is important?

Mr. Howarth: Let me make it absolutely clear what I said. I stand entirely by that. In the case of clear default, that which I have described will be the case. The hon.

Gentleman knows full well—I made the point earlier—that the Decommissioning Commission under General de Chastelain has that responsibility. We recognise its independence, its skill and experience and we also recognise its good faith. We shall have to judge on the basis of what it says not only about what has happened, but about what the intentions for the future are. In those circumstances, I think that it is entirely appropriate that that should be the case.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: Let me make a little more progress and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already been at pains to make clear. In the event of clear default, Unionists will not find that they are on their own.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister realise that the people of Northern Ireland will judge the outcome of the commission's report not on what it says but on the weapons that they see surrendered and destroyed?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman, I know, makes a serious point. Everybody, in the end, will judge the success of the process not only on the establishment of institutions, the Executive and the Assembly, but on the extent to which it genuinely leads to decommissioning. There is no difference between us on that point. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand just how seriously my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my colleagues take the matter.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will indulge the right hon. Gentleman for a second time, but I then will need to make some progress.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am extremely grateful, but the debate can move backwards and forwards in Committee.
First, may I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who has consistently in recent weeks—in virtually every speech that I can find—stressed the importance of decommissioning, so there can be no doubt in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland or anybody else that the Government attach huge significance to decommissioning? It seemed to me that the Minister did not say quite the same thing in answer to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) as he said previously. Therefore, I would be grateful if he would address the matter again.
Earlier, the Minister said that, if de Chastelain's report indicated that there had been no decommissioning, the Secretary of State would intervene and intervene quickly. However, in reply to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, he added the extra condition that the Government would then have to make a judgment about intentions. Bearing in mind that this issue will be the front-page story in all tomorrow's newspapers in Ireland, if not in this country,


will the Minister take his time and say precisely what is the Government's position so that we can all understand what we may have to look forward to?

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman will accept entirely that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to make decisions on the basis of what is reported to him. What he has to decide—and will decide—on the basis of that report is that there has to be clear progress towards a timetable that was set out in the Good Friday agreement. I do not think that it would be sensible—strictly speaking, I do think it would be what the House wants—for me to enter into a discussion about what progress should be made at this point. However, we need to know clearly what the intentions are. I shall not speculate on what might be in the report, because I simply do not know what will be in it at this point.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that there is a bit of confusion here. What the Minister has just said is not what we were made to believe by the Secretary of State. That had to do with real decommissioning and not with intention or with whether we could see any progress. It was about whether real decommissioning was going to take place. Tonight, the Minister has not said that and he needs to make the matter clear not only for the people of Northern Ireland who want to see decommissioning, but especially for those who do not want to do it. They need to have a clear message from the House.

Mr. Howarth: Let me make the position clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that there is the intention to make progress and that there will be a programme that will lead—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—and that there will be progress toward the commitment that exists within the Good Friday agreement. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) understands that that was the position all along. I have not changed that position tonight, nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I should now like to address aspects of the Bill. So far, we have dealt with matters that are not contained in any of the clauses. Perhaps we should now move on.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. After the Minister's remarks, do you not catch the strong stench of sugar and butter simmering on a stove?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Howarth: I shall not go into the hon. Gentleman's culinary allusions.
The Bill might potentially benefit Members of the Dail. Throughout the debate, many of those who have taken part have expressed the—false—assumption that it is being brought into force exclusively for the benefit of Sinn Fein. That is not the case. There have been numerous individuals who have taken up a political career both north and south of the border, including members of the

Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party of Northern Ireland, who have gone on from positions in Northern Ireland to be elected to the Dail.

Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), but not to the hon. Member for Stone, because he did not bother to come in to listen to what I had to say about his speech.

Mr. Thompson: Although certain persons may have served both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, is not the point they did not serve in both places at the same time?

Mr. Howarth: I did not assert that any did. I was merely pointing out that the only people who had been mentioned during the debate were members of Sinn Fein. However, certain members of the parties I mentioned have, in the past, served both in Northern Ireland and in the Dail.

Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: Yes, because the hon. Gentleman has sat here throughout the debate. However, I shall then attempt to conclude my speech.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the Minister. May I take him away from the generalities of the Bill and back to the amendments, which deal with the decommissioning of illegally held weapons by paramilitary organisations? Will he now answer clearly the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who asked him to explain precisely how we would know whether weapons were being decommissioned? After the Minister's answer, I am extremely confused, as is the rest of the Committee.

Mr. Howarth: I cannot be held responsible for the hon. Gentleman's confusion, for it is a regular occurrence.
There is potentially a broad group of individuals, not only members of Sinn Fein, who might want to take advantage of the Bill's provisions. Of all the potential beneficiaries in the Dail, only one is a member of Sinn Fein.
The Bill stands on its own merits as a sensible and modest measure to reflect the close and co-operative relationship that we now enjoy with the Government and people of Ireland. If there is a linkage to be made between the Bill and the new constitutional arrangements, it should be with the significant amendments to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which came into effect only last December. Those changes put consent at the heart of the Irish constitution. They remain in force regardless of other developments, and rightly so.
Now that those arrangements have come into force, the time is right to extend the further courtesy set out in the Bill to Ireland and treat that country on the same basis in electoral law as most other favoured nations are treated.
I cannot recommend that the Committee accepts any of the amendments. In the light of what I have said, I hope that some of the right hon. and hon. Members who have tabled or supported the amendments will feel it appropriate to withdraw them.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I seek your guidance. Would it be possible when we come to vote for you to be prepared to put separately to the vote amendments Nos.10 and 32 and new clause 1? They have all approached the matter in a different way and have all received some support during the debate. It would be important for the Committee to indicate which it supports.

The First Deputy Chairman: I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I say no more than that.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. May I support the proposition of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not a point of order. I have answered the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the Committee is not pursuing it. I have said clearly that I will consider the matter. I do not want hon. Members to bring a case to me because the case has been put.

Mr. MacKay: I think that the Committee was concerned and confused about one aspect of the Minister's response. I would have forgiven him if it had not been for the fact that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was sitting next to him and appeared to be aiding and abetting him. In those circumstances, it is important that we have clarification. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) rightly observed, our deliberations will almost certainly be splashed on the front pages of the Northern Ireland newspapers. That being so, we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland that the Minister's remarks be clarified.
The Under-Secretary of State said—he will correct me if I am misquoting him, but I do not think that I am—that the Secretary of State would intervene only to suspend the Executive, and in consequence the cross-border bodies and other organisations, if General de Chastelain reported that no progress was being made. He added that if the general said that there was an intention to make progress in future, that would be all right.
I hope that I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State might want to intervene to clarify the matter. I said earlier, when I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman was understandably detained in the Province, that I much welcomed the indications that he had given publicly that if—we all hope and pray that this will not happen—decommissioning does not take place in the next week or so and the general reports that progress has not been made, he would then suspend the Executive. I added that it was vital that it was the Secretary of State who suspended the Executive and not the First Minister, who by no action of the Secretary of State was forced to resign and therefore collapse the Executive. I would appreciate

confirmation of that from the Under Secretary of State or the Secretary of State tonight. I think that that would helpfully clarify the situation.
If the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do not wish to clarify the position, I fear that we must stick to what Hansard will presumably have reported. If the general reported that there is an intention to make progress, I would accept that, if it took only a few days. However, we cannot continue for many days without progress taking place. We are hoping and expecting that the Secretary of State will stick to what he has always indicated and promised us. That is—I am glad to say that he is nodding—that he will suspend the Executive if decommissioning has not properly commenced to the satisfaction of the general. I think that I can take the right hon. Gentleman's nod as a sign that I have interpreted the position, but it is difficult to know as he is now winking at me and not prepared to rise to say one thing or the other. I suspect that he is watching the clock and hoping that the sitting will be suspended at 10 o'clock.
It is essential that I put on the record on behalf of the Opposition that we are four square behind the Secretary of State in suspending the Executive if he feels that he must do so if there has been no proper decommissioning. It is—[Interruption.] the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) says from his place on the Bench as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, "What has this to do with the Bill?" If he has not been in his place throughout the debate, I shall explain exactly what it has to do with the Bill. Decommissioning is the key to the amendment. Therefore it is important that the matter has been raised first by the Under-Secretary and that it has been responded to by me. Perhaps that will put the hon. Gentleman right.

I was intensely disappointed in the Under-Secretary's reply to hon. Members' complaints about the necessity for Committee stage—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Electronic Communications Bill and the Disqualifications Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 156.

Division No. 38]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Alexander, Douglas
Benton, Joe appendix>


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Berry, Roger


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Best, Harold


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Atkins, Charlotte
Blears, Ms Hazel


Austin, John
Blizzard, Bob


Banks, Tony
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Battle, John
Borrow, David


Bayley, Hugh
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Beard, Nigel
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bradshaw, Ben


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Brinton, Mrs Helen






Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hain, Peter



Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Browne, Desmond
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Burgon, Colin
Healey, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hepburn, Stephen


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Heppell, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hesford, Stephen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith


Caplin, Ivor
Hinchliffe, David


Cawsey, Ian
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hood, Jimmy


Chaytor, David
Hope, Phil


Clapham, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Howells, Dr Kim


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hurst, Alan


Clelland, David
Hutton, John


Clwyd, Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Coaker, Vernon
Illsley, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Colman, Tony
Jamieson, David


Connarty, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Crausby, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cummings, John
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dalyell, Tam
Kemp, Fraser


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Davidson, Ian
Kidney, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dawson, Hilton
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dean, Mrs Janet
Laxton, Bob


Denham, John
Lepper, David


Dismore, Andrew
Leslie, Christopher


Dobbin, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Doran, Frank
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dowd, Jim
Linton, Martin


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lock, David


Efford, Clive
Love, Andrew


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McAvoy, Thomas


Ennis, Jeff
McCabe, Steve


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Fisher, Mark



Fitzpatrick, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Flint, Caroline
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McDonnell, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McFall, John


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foulkes, George
McIsaac, Shona


Gapes, Mike
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gardiner, Barry
Mackinlay, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gerrard, Neil
McWalter, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWilliam, John


Goggins, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallaber, Judy


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grogan, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gunnell, John
Martlew, Eric





Maxton, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Singh, Marsha


Meale, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin
Soley, Clive


Moffatt, Laura
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spellar, John


Moran, Ms Margaret
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morley, Elliot
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mudie, George
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin



Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pearson, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Perham, Ms Linda
Tipping, Paddy


Pickthall, Colin
Todd, Mark


Pike, Peter L
Touhig, Don


Plaskitt, James
Trickett, Jon


Pollard, Kerry
Truswell, Paul


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Tynan, Bill


Primarolo, Dawn
Walley, Ms Joan


Prosser, Gwyn
Ward, Ms Claire


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Watts, David


Quinn, Lawrie
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Wicks, Malcolm


Rammell, Bill
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)



Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooney, Terry
Wills, Michael


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wilson, Brian


Roy, Frank
Winnick, David


Ruane, Chris
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruddock, Joan
Wise, Audrey


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wood, Mike


Ryan, Ms Joan
Woodward, Shaun


Sarwar, Mohammad
Woolas, Phil


Savidge, Malcolm
Worthington, Tony


Sawford, Phil
Wray, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shipley, Ms Debra
Mr. Mike Hall and


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Body, Sir Richard


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brady, Graham


Baker, Norman
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Breed, Colin


Beggs, Roy
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Browning, Mrs Angela


Bercow, John
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Burns, Simon


Blunt, Crispin
Burstow, Paul






Butterfill, John
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clappison, James
Madel, Sir David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maginnis, Ken


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Major, Rt Hon John


Collins, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Mates, Michael


Cotter, Brian
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Curry, Rt Hon David
May, Mrs Theresa


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moss, Malcolm


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Nicholls, Patrick


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Oaten, Mark


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Duncan, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Paisley, Rev Ian


Faber, David
Pickles, Eric


Fabricant, Michael
Prior, David


Fallon, Michael
Randall, John


Flight Howard
Rendel, David


Forsythe, Clifford
Robathan, Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence


Foster, Don (Bath)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fox, Dr Liam
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fraser, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gale, Roger
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Garnier, Edward
St Aubyn, Nick


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Sanders, Adrian


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shepherd, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gray, James
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Green, Damian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Greenway, John
Soames, Nicholas


Grieve, Dominic
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hague, Rt Hon William
Spring, Richard



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Steen, Anthony


Hammond, Philip
Streeter, Gary


Hawkins, Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Hayes, John
Swayne, Desmond


Heald, Oliver
Syms, Robert


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Horam, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Thompson, William


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyler, Paul


Key, Robert
Tyrie, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Viggers, Peter


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Walter, Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Wardle, Charles


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Waterson, Nigel


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Wells, Bowen


Lansley, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Leigh, Edward
Whittingdale, John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Willis, Phil


Lidington, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Livsey, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lougnton, Tim



Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Mr. Stephen Day and


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a result of the vote, we have to deduce that it is the Government's intention that we carry on with the Bill,

which is the second part of an accelerated process in two days. We had the Second Reading yesterday; we had a curtailed procedure before Committee stage and a curtailed procedure for the rest of the Bill. May I ask whether there is anything the House can do to get the Government to tell us why we have to move so quickly? I sat throughout the whole of the Second Reading. There was no explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, (Mr. Oaten) sat throughout the whole of the proceedings today. There has been no explanation

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I stand. He should know that.
What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is this: the House has decided to continue with the Committee of the whole House. Therefore, that is what I intend to do.
Again considered in Committee.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. MacKay: When the 10 o'clock motion was sort of moved, I thought that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) first of all was pulling stumps when he was tweaked and changed his mind. I was complaining that the Under-Secretary of State in his summing up had not once told us why it was necessary for this legislation to be rushed through so quickly. Let me explain why my colleagues and I voted against the 10 o'clock motion. Quite simply, it is normal practice in the House to have a Second Reading debate—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The House decided on the 10 o'clock motion. The one thing I do not want to do is repeat myself, because I usually advise hon. Members not to do so. The right hon. Gentleman must come back to the amendment that he was so kindly winding up.

Mr. MacKay: When you called me to order originally, Mr. Martin, because it was 10 o'clock, I was remarking to you and the Committee that in listening to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland summing up the debate, at some length, and rightly so—I make no quibble about that—it was concerning to hon. Members on this side, from all parties, that he had not addressed at all in his winding up the fact that nearly every hon. and right hon. Member who had spoken had asked why it was necessary to have a Committee stage of a Bill the day after Second Reading. You, Mr. Martin, will understand, as the Secretary of State, who is returning to his place, will understand, because he is an experienced parliamentarian, that the normal practice is that a Second Reading takes place, a vote is taken, and if the Bill receives its Second Reading the House, either on the Floor or upstairs, moves into Committee the following week. There is a very good reason why this happens. It is so that the House and Ministers can reflect—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. What is done is done. I have no control over these matters. The House has decided that I must return the Committee to the debate on


the amendments, so the right hon. Gentleman must speak to them rather than discuss the history of how we arrived at this position.

Mr. MacKay: I have no wish to question the vote on the Ten o'clock motion. I have moved from that, I hope—as you rightly requested me to, Mr. Martin—to where I was at 9.59 pm, after which you—again, rightly—called me to order because the clock had struck ten. At 9.59 pm, I was saying the same to the Under-Secretary of State as had been said by every other Member who had spoken; I assume that they were in order. Like them, I was asking why we needed to rush the legislation through.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department confirmed to me, from a sedentary position, that the Bill did not constitute either urgent or emergency legislation—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue. The other hon. Members who have spoken may have mentioned the Second Reading in passing, but it is not permissible to concentrate on Second Reading in a debate on amendments. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point; I now ask him to speak to the amendments, which are indeed very narrow.

Mr. MacKay: At no point was I discussing Second Reading. I was discussing something much more important than Second Reading, which, as you rightly say, was past, done for and gone yesterday. I was asking why the Committee stage of a Bill that is not urgent or an emergency Bill need take place this week, and my question was not answered.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) rightly asked what was the special reason. We have been given no special reason, and that makes it very difficult for many Members—especially the Liberal Democrats, who, not uncharacteristically, have not yet made up their minds—to decide which way to vote. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Winchester, who is not capable of making up his mind until he knows why we need to rush the legislation through. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to tell us why it is being rushed through, why it is emergency legislation, and why—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to keep interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but let me say this to him. I would not allow the Under-Secretary of State to discuss these matters, because what we are discussing is not the legislation in its entirety or the way in which it is being rushed through, but the amendment and those grouped with it. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is what he must discuss.

Mr. MacKay: The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland failed to respond to any of the points made by hon. Members speaking to my amendment and new clause, and the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). It is interesting, and needs to be pointed out, that not one Labour Member supported the Front Bench. We heard a good speech from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and a very good intervention from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but not one Labour Member saw fit to support

Ministers. I consider that deeply significant. Having been in the Chair for some time on more than one occasion during this Committee stage, Mr. Martin, you will have noted that for almost all the sitting—nearly five hours so far—hardly any Labour Members have been present until the vote. That is disgraceful.
The Under-Secretary of State—rightly, I believe—made much of what had been achieved under the Belfast agreement. But he must accept that his Government—rightly—the Irish Government—rightly—and the democratic non-violent parties, Unionist, nationalist and Alliance—rightly—have jumped every hurdle. Only one group have not fulfilled their obligations under the Belfast agreement: the paramilitaries, whether they are republican or so-called loyalist. They have not fulfilled their obligations on two counts. First, they do not appear to have renounced violence for good because beatings, mutilations and tortures are still going on. Secondly, even more significant, they have failed to decommission any of their illegally held arms and explosives.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland singularly failed to address the point that I made earlier and that others have endorsed: many believe, I included, that the process to date has been all take by the paramilitaries and no give. The Bill—I have already begged to differ with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—is relatively small beer and relatively unimportant. Therefore, it is not right that it be passed, unless my amendment is incorporated. It says that, unless substantial decommissioning is confirmed by General de Chastelain, the Bill should not become law. That is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, many Labour Members who have expressed reservations publicly or privately, the Liberal Democrats, who have expressed reservations through the hon. Member for Winchester, and Unionist Members who also oppose it, to vote against it.
It is a sad day for the House of Commons when legislation, for no good reason, is pushed through without any chance for us to consider it properly. Much as I genuinely like and respect the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I believe that he has, under orders, behaved disreputably by pushing the Bill through without proper debate. It is shameful and wrong. He and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will live to regret it.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I thank you, Mr. Martin, for calling me. I apologise to those who will have noted that I have not been in the Chamber all day. I have been participating in the Committee stage of the Terrorism Bill. None the less, I have heard much of what has been discussed.
I feel somewhat sorry for the two Ministers who have had to carry the burden of a Bill that was contrived by—I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has just left; I understand his sensitivity to what I have to say—the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. Yesterday, on Second Reading, we discussed why the Bill had been introduced in the first place, and we have discussed for whom the Bill is drafted.
I have some sympathy for the two Ministers in that respect, but I still cannot understand why, in responding to the Committee stage, the Under-Secretary of State for


Northern Ireland repeated inadequately what he said on Second Reading yesterday. He did not elaborate at all on those points, but referred to them in the most general terms. He did not elaborate, for example, on the consultation. He indicated that the consultation involved many others, yet I know that he was inaccurate—unavoidably inaccurate, I hope—when he suggested that others besides Sinn Fein had an interest—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Committee must come to order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the Committee.

Mr. Maginnis: Thank you, Mr. Martin; that was helpful, given the current state of my voice.
Although the Minister mentioned those other matters, we know—I have pointed it out to him—that Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Democratic Left and the Irish Labour party are not interested in participating as Members either of this place or of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In conversation, that was made obvious to me. To try to justify himself, the Minister pointed out that Austin Curry and John Cushnahan, among others, stood for seats in the Dail. However, they did so not simply because, as Irish citizens, they were entitled to do so, but rather because there was no opportunity to pursue their political careers in Northern Ireland, which was in the direct-rule process.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The situation was even more serious than that. Like other politicians in Northern Ireland, they had played a part, but, as there was no elected Chamber, they had difficulty even in finding secondary jobs to keep themselves occupied.

Mr. Maginnis: Indeed that was the case. Consequently, they moved, and one served in a European assembly and the other in the Dail.
The Government are making an effort to enamel on to the edge of the agreement provisions that are specifically designed to facilitate the position of Sinn Fein. However, he, I and every other hon. Member want Sinn Fein to exercise what, so far, it has claimed to be a voluntary obligation to disarm.
What is happening to that voluntary obligation after all this time? Today, I saw the Under-Secretary of State struggling, and failing, to try to explain what the Government's reaction will be if the de Chastelain report were couched in negative terms. Part of the Minister's difficulty is that he is afraid of offending Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein would use that offence as an excuse—that is the reality—for not presenting before General de Chastelain reports at the end of this month.
I shall relieve the Under-Secretary of the obligation and tell him what will have to happen. If I am wrong, he will be able to clarify the position for the rest of the Committee and contradict me. If there is a positive response, it will mean that there has been a first significant disarmament phase and that the general will be able to say in an agenda how events should proceed until 22 May.
If there is not a first round of disarmament, General de Chastelain will have to report that. Immediately, there will be an obligation on the Government to suspend the Assembly and return Northern Ireland to a direct rule system in the interim. That will be supported by the Government in Dublin, even though they have no direct say in the matter. If I am wrong, I hope that the Under-Secretary will contradict me now. If he does not, we will know the process that we must expect.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 10 are in line with what is necessary if Northern Ireland is to be governed in the same way as other regions of the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary has stated that the Bill is not the direct result of the Belfast agreement. I do not know whether that is so, or not. I do know, however—because I was fairly close to the heart of events—that the Bill was never mooted during the negotiations on that agreement, nor during the Mitchell review.
No Bill relating to Northern Ireland and the affairs of elected representatives there can stand apart from what is contained in the Belfast agreement. Even if the Government fall down on their obligations, Opposition Members must ensure that disarmament is an element of this Bill. I see no justification at all for the Bill, and many agree with me. However, no Bill such as this can be at variance with the conditions laid down for devolved government in Northern Ireland.
Disarmament is not a simple political issue in Northern Ireland. It is not a question of two opposing views. Disarmament is an inherent part of democracy. It is vital if those who have relied on violence or the threat of violence for more than 100 years are to be moved to recognise the primacy of democracy.
The importance of this Committee stage is immense, in the context of the House's procedures, traditions and protocol. It is important in terms of the way in which people in Northern Ireland see themselves as being treated as fellow citizens in the United Kingdom. If they find that the interests of 657 Members of this House are secondary to the interests of two Members who do not take their places here, their faith in the institutions of government, which we are trying to achieve under the most difficult circumstances, will be less than that needed to sustain what we are trying to do.
The Minister must speak frankly. He must tell us about the others who have been party to this. He must stop giving the impression that the leader of the party to which I belong was privy to the Bill when it was mooted. The leader of my party was made privy to the Bill when the Prime Minister informed him that it was to be introduced. He made known his antipathy to the proposals, and made it very clear that there would be a conflict of interest if the Bill was introduced in the form that was shown to him. That did not mean approval.

Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will, I think, accept that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was consulted about the intention to introduce the Bill and the principles contained therein. As a result of those consultations, clause 2 was added to the Bill.

Mr. Maginnis: That is the clause to which you would not wish me to allude in any depth, Sir Alan. Clause 2 prevents a Minister in one legislature from being a


Minister in the other. In fact, discussion of what my right hon. Friend has suggested is not yet complete, but we shall come to the relevant amendments later.
I suggest that the Minister intervene once again—I know that he will find this difficult, if not impossible—and tell us which of the Irish nationalist parties will take advantage of that provision, or wants to take advantage of it, or suggests that it should have the right to be a Member of another legislature in the United Kingdom as well as the Dail.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This may be of interest, but it is straying too far outside the scope of the amendments. I remind the hon. Gentleman that many arguments have been deployed over the past five hours, and he must not stray from order by repeating them too much or by not keeping within the scope of the specific amendments. I hope that he will govern his remarks accordingly.

Mr. Maginnis: You can be assured that I will do my best, Sir Alan, while, at the same time, trying to encourage Her Majesty's Ministers to be frank with the Committee. What is the purpose of the Bill and who will it benefit beyond those who have, as yet, failed to show any inclination that they are about to disarm and, hence, to meet the requirements of us all under the Belfast agreement?

Mr. Forth: The Committee has laboured mightily to try to elicit from the Government the rationale that lay behind the Bill—the amendments sought in part to do that and, in that context, to improve the Bill. However, we have failed, as the speech by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) showed all too well. Those of us who have sat through the debate in its entirety are little wiser than when the proceedings started as to why the Bill was introduced and why the Committee had to sit so hard on the heels of Second Reading.
The Minister urged the Committee to reject all the amendments. In doing so, he tried—interestingly—to have the argument both ways. He tantalised us with much talk about the importance and ramifications of the Belfast agreement, while trying to distance the Government from any connection between the agreement and the Bill. The Government seem to be trying to have it both ways. They hint at, or tantalise us with, the prospect that the Bill would add significantly to the goodies—the benefits—that have flowed from the Belfast agreement thus far. That has been challenged frequently during this brief debate. However, I do not want to linger on that matter, as we may have an opportunity to return to it in our further proceedings.
Not only are we no clearer as to the Government's motive in introducing the measure, but we are even less clear as to whether there is a connection in the Government's mind between the agreement, with all its ramifications, and the provisions of the Bill. In relation to the amendments, we are no further forward in understanding why the Minister has urged us to reject all of them, given that amendment No. 10, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), would strengthen the measure by an

explicit reference to the decommissioning process, linked to the trust that we all put in the de Chastelain part of that process.

Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend says that we are no further forward. Has he reflected on the fact that perhaps we might have moved slightly backwards? In his summing up, the Under-Secretary used one phrase that we have not heard before: he said that there was "no direct linkage" between the Bill and the Belfast agreement. Does my right hon. Friend consider that there is some indirect linkage?

Mr. Forth: I congratulate my hon. Friend. He has identified more from the Minister's remarks than I was able to do. He has suggested an intriguing possibility. While my hon. Friend was speaking, I watched the Minister carefully—as ever I do—and I saw him shake his head. The Minister, from a sedentary position, by subtle use of body language, sought to refute the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. From that, I conclude not only that is there no direct link, but that it would appear from what the Minister is not telling us verbally, but is telling us bodily, there is no indirect link either.

Mr. Fallon: May I press my right hon. Friend? Does he agree that the matter is important? I made a criticism of his new clause because he was introducing to the Bill precisely the linkage that the Government were attempting to deny. If it is now suggested that there is some linkage between the Bill and the Belfast agreement, that would surely strengthen the case for my right hon. Friend's new clause.

Mr. Forth: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend that that must be so. However, we are still left with the problem that the Minister has not yet formally conceded that point, even though I, in my modest contribution earlier, and other hon. Friends have tried to show, by quoting from yesterday's Hansard, that the Minister's very words—even more, those of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien)—clearly suggested that, in their minds, there was a distinct link between the Belfast agreement and the Bill. In all those respects, we are no further forward.
I was referring to the amendments and the new clause, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and other right hon. and hon. Friends. I was trying to establish that they did not run counter to the agreement, but were intended to reinforce what was in the Belfast agreement in the context of the Bill. The Minister rejected the new clause, for reasons that he failed to make clear.
My own modest amendment, No. 1, tried to go even further. It tried to say that we could strengthen the Bill by amending it to give explicit recognition to the fact that, before the alleged benefits of the Bill came into effect, the parties to the agreement would all have to sign up to a statement saying that the agreement had been fully implemented. The Minister seems to have rejected even that.
What mystifies me is that we have tried genuinely, I believe, to co-operate, to take the spirit of the Bill on board and to strengthen it by means of our new clause and amendments, by making references to the decommissioning process, to the parties to the agreement and so on; yet the Minister has still seen fit to tell us that he wants the Committee to reject all those amendments.
I have not yet mentioned the excellent amendment No. 32, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), which brings yet another imaginative approach to the Bill. It would give the Government another option that they could use to strengthen the Bill. These are not attempts to undermine the Bill. They are all patently attempts to reinforce and strengthen the Bill by making cross-references to the decommissioning process and to the agreement process; and amendment No. 32 makes an explicit reference to the rejection of terrorism.
None of that, surely, can be regarded as remotely controversial. None of it seeks to undermine the Bill. Even those of us who voted against Second Reading have accepted the verdict of the House yesterday, and we are now seeking to look at the Bill in a positive light and to strengthen it with our amendments. I would contend that those separate approaches are not necessarily contradictory and may well be complementary.
Therefore the Committee may—guided by you, Sir Alan—wish to express its view separately on the different approaches taken by myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. I hope that you will consider that carefully, having, as ever, closely followed the Committee's deliberations, in which support has been expressed by different people for the different amendments at different stages of our deliberations.
Even though the Minister has said that he wants all the amendments rejected out of hand, without giving sufficient reason, the Committee is entitled to take a different view. I hope that you, Sir Alan, will give the Committee an opportunity to do so in the fullest possible sense.

Mr. Cash: I was out of the Chamber for a fairly short time because I wanted to have some discussions with other Members and ask them the reason for the Bill. I shall not betray any confidence, but I will say that I had a word with a very senior member of the Government, and when I pressed him as to the reason for the Bill, he said that it was all part of an understanding. That is as near as we have got, so far, to an explanation. There has been no explanation whatever, and I entirely—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to tell the Committee with whom the understanding was made?

Mr. Cash: I wish that I were in a position to be able to disclose that, but I can say that, quite clearly, the implicit suggestion was that there was an understanding with Sinn Fein-IRA. We know that discussions were going on, which have not been disclosed to the House or in any

other way—secret discussions. Baffled as many people may be by this bizarre Bill, it does not alter the fact that, in some way, there is perceived to be some advantage to Sinn Fein-IRA in the arrangements proposed in the Bill.
Some might believe that these proposals do not relate to a member of Sinn Fein-IRA, or to any other person who may be entitled to stand for the House of Commons. However, persons who have known terrorist views could stand without any difficulty for the Assembly in Northern Ireland. It follows that we are entitled to an answer to the questions posed in my amendment. We are talking about qualification and disqualification, about membership of the Assembly and about membership of this House. The Minister has not replied to my question.

Mr. George Howarth: I replied to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in the debate. It is just that he was not here when I did so.

Mr. Cash: I know exactly what the Minister said, and he has not replied to my points at all. I asked him this—if a person with a track record of espousing terrorism were to take his seat, after election, in either the Assembly or this House, should he not be required to disavow terrorism before taking his seat? There has been no answer to that question, and relating it to questions of allegiance is not the entire answer. We are entitled to assume that no person who continued to espouse terrorism should be allowed to take his seat in this House or in the Assembly.

Mr. Fallon: Does my hon. Friend recall that the only answer that he did receive from the Minister was the technical point that the provision in the Northern Ireland Assembly applied only to members of the Administration, rather than to the membership of the Assembly itself? The Minister did not answer my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Cash: Indeed, and there is an enormous difference between a member of the Administration and a person seeking election. I ask the Minister again to answer my question. Clearly, he is not intending to do so because he will not come to the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Howarth: I have answered the question.

Mr. Cash: The Minister has not answered it.
We have had no answer on the reason for the rush, either. I suspect that it is because the Bill is part of a secret understanding, of the kind indicated to me when I was outside the precincts of the Chamber. Furthermore, there is no reciprocation in the arrangements being proposed here. I have seen the Minister shaking his head and shrugging his shoulders, giving the impression that this was a spontaneous proposal from the Government—as if they had invented the proposal out of thin air.

The Chairman: Order. The points that the hon. Gentleman is deploying now were for Second Reading, and they are not directly addressing the amendment. I must insist that he address his remarks to the amendment. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was winding up on his own amendment. That is what he must do—not go back into the whole Second Reading debate and the reasons for the Bill.

Mr. Cash: Indeed, but the points that I have been making are directly relevant to the question of whether or not terrorists who have not disavowed terrorism should be allowed to stand for election, as well as to take their seat in the House. It is by no means impossible that people who are terrorists and have not disavowed their terrorism will seek election in the knowledge that they will not be able to take their seats.
Respectfully, Sir Alan, I suggest that there ought to be separate votes for the amendments which fall within the group. I am not prepared to withdraw my amendment. Furthermore, I respectfully ask you, Sir Alan, to allow a separate vote on each of the other amendments.

11 pm

Sir Richard Body: The Under-Secretary of State has been very patient, as he always is. However, on this occasion, his powers of persuasion have been mislaid. His comments on decommissioning and his arguments against the amendments carried no weight at all. Over several hours, he has been pressed on these issues, but he has failed to respond.
We have been asked to rush through the Bill. It received a truncated debate yesterday on Second Reading, the whole of its Committee stage is being considered tonight and it will have its Third Reading before the end of the week. It is an important constitutional Bill, but were the Government of Ireland consulted? Presumably, they were; and that might explain why the Under-Secretary is unable to persuade us about decommissioning. I hope that every Labour Member is eager for decommissioning to take place. The amendment does little more than reaffirm that point and insist that decommissioning take place before we make yet another concession to those who are given to terrorism.
Have the Government of Ireland been asked to intervene? Is that why we have had to give this concession, so that they might intercede on decommissioning? If that is not the reason, there is a very ugly reason for the Bill. It is that the Government are slipping away from their requirements on decommissioning. There can be no third explanation for the Bill.
I make this plea to the Under-Secretary. Will he speak again and tell us the answers to the points that we have put? They have been put repeatedly and with almost tedious repetition, but there has been no response from him. I ask him again: what is the reason for the Bill?
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 271.

Division No. 39]
[11.3 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Amess, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brady, Graham


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beggs, Roy
Browning, Mrs Angela


Bercow, John
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Burns, Simon


Blunt, Crispin
Butterfill, John


Body, Sir Richard
Cash, William


Boswell, Tim
Clappison, James





Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maginnis, Ken


Collins, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maples, John


Cran, James
Mates, Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Donaldson, Jeffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Duncan, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Norman, Archie


Evans, Nigel
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Faber, David
Ottaway, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Page, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian


Flight, Howard
Pickles, Eric


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Prior, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Randall, John


Fox, Dr Liam
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fraser, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Robertson, Laurence


Garnier, Edward
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gibb, Nick
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ruffley, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
St Aubyn, Nick


Gray, James
Sayeed, Jonathan


Green, Damian
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Greenway, John
Shepherd, Richard


Grieve, Dominic
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hammond, Philip
Soames, Nicholas


Hawkins, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hayes, John
Spring, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Steen, Anthony


Horam, John
Streeter, Gary


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Swayne, Desmond


Hunter, Andrew
Syms, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Key, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Thompson, William


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tredinnick, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Trend, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter


Lansley, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Leigh, Edward
Wardle, Charles


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Waterson, Nigel


Lidington, David
Wells, Bowen


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Loughton, Tim
Whittingdale, John


Luff, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Madel, Sir David
Mr. Stephen Day.


NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Alexander, Douglas
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Berry, Roger


Atkins, Charlotte
Best, Harold


Austin, John
Betts, Clive


Banks, Tony
Blears, Ms Hazel


Barnes, Harry
Blizzard, Bob


Battle, John
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Borrow, David


Beard, Nigel
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Bradshaw, Ben


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Brinton, Mrs Helen






Browne, Desmond
Heppell, John


Burgon, Colin
Hesford, Stephen


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hill, Keith


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hope, Phil


Cann, Jamie
Hopkins, Kelvin


Caplin, Ivor
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cawsey, Ian
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Howells, Dr Kim


Chaytor, David
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hurst, Alan



Hutton, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Clelland, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clwyd, Ann
Jamieson, David


Coaker, Vernon
Jenkins, Brian


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Coleman, Iain
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Colman, Tony
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Corston, Jean
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cousins, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cranston, Ross
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Crausby, David
Kemp, Fraser


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cummings, John
Kidney, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dalyell, Tam
Laxton, Bob


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Lepper, David


Davidson, Ian
Leslie, Christopher


Dawson, Hilton
Levitt, Tom


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dismore, Andrew
Linton, Martin


Donohoe, Brian H
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Doran, Frank
Lock, David


Dowd, Jim
Love, Andrew


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McCabe, Steve


Efford, Clive
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Ellman, Mrs Louise



Ennis, Jeff
McDonagh, Siobhain


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Macdonald, Calum


Fisher, Mark
McDonnell, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McFall, John


Flint, Caroline
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McWalter, Tony


Foulkes, George
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mallaber, Judy


Gardiner, Barry
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gerard, Neil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Goggins, Paul
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Martlew, Eric


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grogan, John
Merron, Gillian


Hain, Peter
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Miller, Andrew


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mitchell, Austin


Healey, John
Moffatt, Laura


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hepburn, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret





Morley, Elliot
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spellar, John



Squire, Ms Rachel


Mountford, Kali
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pollard, Kerry
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Truswell, Paul


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quinn, Lawrie
Tynan, Bill


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Walley, Ms Joan


Rammell, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Watts, David


Rooney, Terry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ruane, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Sarwar, Mohammad
Wills, Michael


Sawford, Phil
Wilson, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Shaw, Jonathan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sheerman, Barry
Wise, Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wood, Mike


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Woodward, Shaun


Singh, Marsha
Woolas, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Noes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Mike Hall and


Soley, Clive
Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page 1, line 9, after "Ireland)", add—
provided that, in respect of Ireland, a person who is or has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who has not disavowed terrorism within the meaning given to that expression by that Act before taking his or her seat in the said House or Assembly shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly".—[Mr. Cash.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 280.

Division No. 40]
[11.17 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Page, Richard


Body, Sir Richard
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cash, William
Robathan, Andrew


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fallon, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shepherd, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maginnis, Ken
Spicer, Sir Michael






Thompson, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Eric Forth.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Davidson, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dawson, Hilton


Alexander, Douglas
Dean, Mrs Janet


Allen, Graham
Denham, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dismore, Andrew


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dobbin, Jim


Atkins, Charlotte
Donohoe, Brian H


Austin, John
Doran, Frank


Banks, Tony
Dowd, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Battle, John
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bayley, Hugh
Efford, Clive


Beard, Nigel
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Ennis, Jeff


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Flint, Caroline


Benton, Joe
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Berry, Roger
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Best, Harold
Foulkes, George


Betts, Clive
Gapes, Mike


Blears, Ms Hazel
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Blizzard, Bob
Gerrard, Neil


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Borrow, David
Goggins, Paul


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bradshaw, Ben
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Browne, Desmond
Grogan, John


Burgon, Colin
Hain, Peter


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Healey, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cann, Jamie
Hepburn, Stephen


Caplin, Ivor
Heppell, John


Cawsey, Ian
Hesford, Stephen


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Chaytor, David
Hill, Keith


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clelland, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clwyd, Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coaker, Vernon
Hurst, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Hutton, John


Coleman, Iain
Iddon, Dr Brian


Colman, Tony
Illsley, Eric


Connarty, Michael
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corston, Jean
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Jenkins, Brian


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Crausby, David
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cummings, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dalyell, Tam
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)





Kemp, Fraser
Rammell, Bill


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kidney, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rooney, Terry


Laxton, Bob
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lepper, David
Ruane, Chris


Leslie, Christopher
Ruddock, Joan


Levitt, Tom
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Savidge, Malcolm


Linton, Martin
Sawford, Phil


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lock, David
Shaw, Jonathan


Love, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCabe, Steve
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Singh, Marsha


McDonagh, Siobhain
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McFall, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McIsaac, Shona
Snape, Peter


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Soley, Clive


Mackinlay, Andrew
Southworth, Ms Helen


McNulty, Tony
Spellar, John


Mactaggart, Fiona
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWalter, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mallaber, Judy
Stevenson, George


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stringer, Graham


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maxton, John



Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Meale, Alan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Merron, Gillian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Miller, Andrew
Todd, Mark


Mitchell, Austin
Touhig, Don


Moffatt, Laura
Trickett, Jon


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Truswell, Paul


Moran, Ms Margaret
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Mountford, Kali
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Mudie, George
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Mullin, Chris
Tynan, Bill


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Walley, Ms Joan


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Ward, Ms Claire


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Watts, David


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Palmer, Dr Nick
Wicks, Malcolm


Pearson, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin
Wills, Michael


Pike, Peter L
Wilson, Brian


Plaskitt, James
Winnick, David


Pollard, Kerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Pope, Greg
Wise, Audrey


Pound, Stephen
Wood, Mike


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Woodward, Shaun


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Woolas, Phil


Primarolo, Dawn
Worthington, Tony


Prosser, Gwyn
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Purchase, Ken
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Noes:


Quinn, Lawrie
Mr. Mike Hall and


Radice. Rt Hon Giles
Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, at end add—
(2A) This section shall come into force on a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall not make such an order unless he has previously laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement in relation to the Belfast Agreement (Cm 3883), stating that in his opinion and in the opinion of all parties to that Agreement all aspects of the Agreement have been implemented.
(2B) No order shall be made under subsection (2A) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".—[Mr. Forth.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 282.

Division No. 41]
[11.29 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Horam, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Baldry, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bercow, John
Key, Robert


Beresford, Sir Paul
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Blunt, Crispin
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Body, Sir Richard
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Boswell, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brady, Graham
Lidington, David


Brazier, Julian
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Loughton, Tim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Luff, Peter


Burns, Simon
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cash, William
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Madel, Sir David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maginnis, Ken


Cran, James
Malins, Humfrey


Curry, Rt Hon David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moss, Malcolm


Day, Stephen
Norman, Archie


Donaldson, Jeffrey
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Page, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paisley, Rev Ian


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Faber, David
Robathan, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Robertson, Laurence


Fallon, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Flight Howard
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ruffley, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
St Aubyn, Nick


Fraser, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gale, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gibb, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gray, James
Soames, Nicholas


Green, Damian
Spicer, Sir Michael


Greenway, John
Spring, Richard


Grieve, Dominic
Steen, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Swayne, Desmond


Hammond, Philip
Syms, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hayes, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Thompson, William


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tredinnick, David





Trend, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Tyrie, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Walter, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. John Randall and


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Mr. Peter Atkinson.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Dalyell, Tam


Alexander, Douglas
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davidson, Ian


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dawson, Hilton


Atkins, Charlotte
Dean, Mrs Janet


Austin, John
Denham, John


Banks, Tony
Dismore, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Dobbin, Jim


Battle, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Bayley, Hugh
Doran, Frank


Beard, Nigel
Dowd, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Efford, Clive


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bennett, Andrew F
Ennis, Jeff


Benton, Joe
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Berry, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Best, Harold
Flint, Caroline


Betts, Clive
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foulkes, George


Borrow, David
Gapes, Mike


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gardiner, Barry


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Gerrard, Neil


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Goggins, Paul


Browne, Desmond
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burgon, Colin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grogan, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hain, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cawsey, Ian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chaytor, David
Healey, John


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heppell, John



Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Ann
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hurst, Alan


Cranston, Ross
Hutton, John


Crausby, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jamieson, David






Jenkins, Brian
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Kemp, Fraser
Rammell, Bill


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kidney, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rooney, Terry


Laxton, Bob
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lepper, David
Ruane, Chris


Leslie, Christopher
Ruddock, Joan


Levitt, Tom
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Savidge, Malcolm


Linton, Martin
Sawford, Phil


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lock, David
Shaw, Jonathan


Love, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCabe, Steve
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Snape, Peter


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Soley, Clive


McIsaac, Shona
Southworth, Ms Helen


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Spellar, John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


McNulty, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Steinberg, Gerry


McWalter, Tony
Stevenson, George


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mallaber, Judy
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stringer, Graham


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert



Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Maxton, John
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meale, Alan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Merron, Gillian
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Todd, Mark


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Touhig, Don


Miller, Andrew
Trickett, Jon


Mitchell, Austin
Truswell, Paul


Moffatt, Laura
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Tynan, Bill


Mountford, Kali
Walley, Ms Joan


Mudie, George
Ward, Ms Claire


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Watts, David


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Osborne, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick
Wills, Michael


Pearson, Ian
Wilson, Brian


Perham, Ms Linda
Winntek, David


Pickthall, Colin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Pike, Peter L
Wise, Audrey


Plaskitt, James
Wood, Mike


Pollard, Kerry
Woodward, Shaun


Pope, Greg
Woolas, Phil





Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Mr. Graham Allen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 1, line 9, at end add—
'(2A) This section shall come into force on a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall not make such an order unless he is satisfied that Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons are qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland'.
This is the point in our proceedings where the debate can be broadened considerably. So far, we have concentrated on some narrowly drawn amendments, but amendment No. 2 covers a much broader matter of principle. None the less, it is important. The point that underlies it is, in one sense, simple, but it properly opens a debate on a principle that I will characterise as reciprocity, for want of a better word. It does not appear in the amendment, but I hope that you agree, Sir Alan, that it admirably sums up the essence of the amendment.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I have listened to my right hon. Friend and read the amendment, but it strikes me that he asks for reciprocity because he does not trust the people with whom the arrangement is being made. Surely that is not the case.

Mr. Forth: I will perhaps come to the matter of who trusts whom in a slightly different context shortly. The point that I wanted to make in laying the ground for the amendment is this: should the change be unilateral or should it be made only if there is an equal and reciprocal change by the legislature that is most involved—that of the Republic of Ireland?
We have to confront two separate issues immediately. First, I make no apology for coming back, however briefly, to the motivation behind the Bill and whether it is designed to react to the Irish Government or, indeed, to any other body. More important, we have to consider as a free-standing issue whether the Bill can and should proceed, regardless of what happens at the other end of the process. Put at its simplest, the question is whether we should accept into this legislative body Members of the Irish Republic's legislature when Members here are not allowed into that body.

Mr. Swayne: Will my right hon. Friend enlighten me as to how the introduction of reciprocity makes an offensive Bill less offensive? Can he describe the conditions in which any right-minded hon. Member, having the interests of the UK at heart—as he would, having taken the Oath—would wish to serve in the Dail?

Mr. Forth: We can perhaps deal with such matters shortly. I am not sure whether it is for me to explore the motivation of Members of the Irish legislature or that of any of us who might wish to go there—although the point may become relevant as I develop my argument—but my hon. Friend's useful intervention reminds me that the principle of the Bill is something on which we can agree or disagree.
I voted against Second Reading but accept that, as the House has taken the view that the Bill is acceptable in principle, the Committee's task is to determine whether and to what extent we can improve it. In that context, I should like my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) to be absolutely clear that, although I do not agree with the Bill's principle, I have to accept the verdict of the House. Accordingly, the spirit in which I move my amendment—which seeks to strengthen the Bill and its purpose—is very positive.
We must therefore ask whether it is right, sensible and acceptable, within the sense and principle of the Bill, which was accepted on Second Reading, now to contemplate the possibility of Members of a legislature of another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland—coming to this place when no such right exists for Members of the House of Commons to go there.
As you know, Sir Alan, Irish law currently states that only Irish citizens may be Members of the Irish legislature. I should say immediately that I agree with that. I believe that we should adopt the Irish approach to the matter, rather than any other, because I think that they have it right. They obviously have a proper sense of their nationhood, of the sovereignty of their country and of the important symbolic value of their legislature as an expression of that sovereignty.
It is Members of this place who, if the Bill were to proceed through all its stages, would compromise our concept of nationhood and sovereignty by admitting the principle that Members of the legislature of another country may be admitted to the House of Commons. It is a very important principle.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: As someone who was born and bred in the Republic, I say that the right hon. Gentleman's comments are an insult to millions of people in this land. He has no right to insult as he does millions of us who have given our allegiance in life and in death to this land. What does he seek to do—to erect the walls of yesteryear?

The Chairman: Order. That was a Second Reading intervention on a Second Reading passage of a speech that should be dealing with amendment No. 2. I am not prepared to listen again to arguments of principle related to Second Reading. Although I allowed such arguments to be deployed in moderation in the previous debate, which was on a wide amendment, I must correct the impression of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): he may think that this is a widely drawn amendment, but I do not, and I shall rule accordingly.

Mr. Forth: Sir Alan, I not only accept, but welcome your guidance in these matters. In seeking to make proper progress, we should have due regard to an amendment' s breadth or otherwise. I had mistakenly thought that, in my amendment, I was seeking to import into the Bill a matter of broad principle. You have said otherwise and I accept that ruling without question.
Let us concentrate, therefore, on my amendment's very narrow point on reciprocity, which must be a relatively simple matter for the Committee to resolve. Are we

prepared to contemplate the Bill proceeding without a reciprocal arrangement or not? At the other end of this deal are the Irish, whom, I tell the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I was praising to the skies. I wish that we could have taken a similar approach to theirs in the matter. The Irish have within their law a provision that I should rather that we had. Regrettably, however, that is not the direction in which the Bill seeks to take us.
I suggest that the amendment would reassure the Committee, the House and the people of the United Kingdom that, at the very least, an equal and opposite arrangement could be established that would allow for the mutual exchange of members of the legislatures.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one problem with the Bill is the lack of trust on both sides? Is not inclusion of the principle of reciprocity essential if trust in both halves of the deal being delivered is to be built up? That affects every element in the Bill, including the narrow point under discussion.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not trust the Government's intentions with the Bill, as they have not explained the motivation behind it. Trusting the legislators of the Irish Republic is another matter, but their law makes their view clear. The risk is that, unamended, the Bill sends out an opposite and very dangerous signal.

Mr. Fabricant: Is not my right hon. Friend being a little unfair to the Dail, which has conceded that it no longer has territorial rights over Northern Ireland? Is not that a concession, and does it not suggest at least an element of reciprocity?

Mr. Forth: No, I am not sure that that is so. The gesture was important in terms of the Belfast agreement, but the problem of whether that agreement is relevant to the Bill remains. Many of us think that it is, but Ministers sometimes say that it may be, and at other times that it is not. Therefore, I am not sure that the radical changes that have taken place in the Republic of Ireland's constitutional arrangements are germane to this debate. Sir Alan has placed a very narrow construct on this amendment, so I am not sure that what my hon. Friend suggests is relevant.
The amendment speaks for itself. It states that the Secretary of State will not make an order to bring the provision into force
unless he is satisfied that Members of the House of Lords and House of Commons are qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland.
We are talking about full reciprocity between two bicameral legislatures. That does not exist at present. The Bill would—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that I can assist the right hon. Gentleman. I know that it is not easy, when one is advancing an argument, to be aware of the words that one is using. However, I can assure him that I have listened


extremely carefully. He has now repeated six times the wording of the amendment in one form or another. That is getting to the point of excess.

Mr. Forth: Thank you, Sir Alan.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: Of course.

Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend consider it possible that some conflict might arise if Members of the Dail sought to become Members of the House of Commons, given the need to take the Oath or to affirm? Similarly, might there not be problems for Members of this Parliament when it came to taking the relevant oath—or whatever is required—required by the legislature of the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point but I am not sure that it bears upon the substance of my amendment. It is one thing to enable Members to qualify for membership of a legislature; whether individuals think that they can do what is necessary to become Members is quite another. In other words, I may be qualified to become a Member of the Irish legislature, but if I did not feel able to take whatever oath was required there, I might not want to put myself forward. There is a real difference. I am involved only in stage one of the process, if I may put it like that, not stage two.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any other country that allows its citizens to sit in another country's Parliament?

The Chairman: Order. That was covered fully on Second Reading, and is not permissible in the context of the debate on this amendment.

Mr. Forth: Thank you, Sir Alan.

Mr. John Bercow: As one who seeks always to be a moderating influence on the deliberations of the Chamber, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the real problem is not the fact that thus far reciprocity has not been formally offered or confirmed in law, but that the Republic of Ireland, having long pontificated on this matter, has yet to offer us the product of its lucubrations? Does he think that the problem is rather like that of Billy Bunter and the postal order that does not arrive?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has the advantage of me in that he follows in detail the proceedings of the Irish legislature which, I confess, I do not. We are, in any case, sticking to the amendment, and I was about to say, partly in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), that I recognise that there could be an obstacle in the way of the amendment. I warn hon. Members that they may have to give some thought as to how serious that obstacle is. I refer to the different basis on which the political process works in terms of membership, election to this House and the Irish legislature.
Ireland has a proportional system of election that carries with it implications not only for the selection of candidates but for their election to the legislature. We, on the other hand, have our time-honoured and excellent single-member constituency system, whereby each constituency has the power—at least in our party—freely to select its candidates. I confess that that difference may be an obstacle to the full operation or fulfilment of the terms of my amendment. It need not be insuperable, because I still think that the fulfilment of its intention would rest with the individuals involved and their determination to exercise the right that it would give them to seek election to the Irish legislature from here or the right of Members of that legislature to seek election here.
I mention that in passing, because it may be a consideration in the minds of hon. Members. I leave them to decide. I believe that the obstacle can be overcome, but I would understand if colleagues felt that it presents great difficulty.
I do not want to test your patience any further, Sir Alan. You have been very kind in guiding me through the amendment. I characterised it with one word at the beginning, which was perhaps rather foolish of me, because it might have restricted my own approach to the amendment. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Committee that this is a vital principle. It is completely absent from the Bill and is essential for the purpose of carrying it further. I hope that the Committee will give it serious thought and support it overwhelmingly.

Mr. William Ross: This has been an interesting debate so far, Sir Alan, and we are always glad of your guidance to keep us in order. Reciprocation and equality of esteem are buzz words in Northern Ireland, especially in Government circles. Parity of esteem is a phrase that we hear day after day—although not everyone believes that it exists, especially in the Government's attitude to the Unionist population of Northern Ireland.
12 midnight
In view of that, I confess to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that I shall treat the amendment as a probing amendment. I want to try to find out what the Government think about those matters, and what representations they have made, on behalf of Members of this and the other place, to ensure that they have absolute clarity as to the intentions of the Government of the Irish Republic. Do they realise that the people of the Irish Republic might have to hold a referendum on the issue if a change were required to their constitution?
Members of this place are not too clear about written constitutions; they are not clear as to their legality and the possibility of legal action, nor about the need to hold a referendum of the whole population before a change can be made to a written constitution. People in the Irish Republic could go to the High Court—as some members of our party did some years' ago—and obtain a decision declaring that any effort to set up reciprocal arrangements in this matter was completely illegal.
In those circumstances, even if the Government of the Irish Republic wanted to allow Members of this and the other place to stand for election to the Dail, that would not be allowed under the constitution. That would mean


that if the Government of the Irish Republic wanted to make such a change, they would have to hold a referendum—at considerable cost to them. I do not know how many millions of punts it would cost, but it would cost a lot of money to undertake such a venture.
If the proposition were accepted, the way would be clear for Members of this place to stand for Dail Eireann as well as being able to sit in the Senate—as they can at present. In the Irish Republic, the Senate is partly elected and partly appointed by the Prime Minister—the way in which we seem to be moving in relation to the House of Lords. However, I shall leave that point, Sir Alan, as I see that you are becoming uneasy. I may be reaching the limits of your patience—stretching the elastic a little—and I should not want to do that.
Real issues are inherent in the measure. We have already discussed the possibility of conflict of interest as it might affect the Executive in Northern Ireland and people from the Dail or elsewhere who might sit here. Earlier, the Government made it clear that they accept that there would be a conflict of interest at ministerial level.
The amendment, in effect, turns the slate over—to consider what would happen if Members of this place should find themselves sitting in the Dail. In those circumstances, there would be a grave conflict of interest—perhaps one that would not be helpful to Dublin. Sitting in their midst might be an individual whose primary loyalty might not be to the Irish Republic and the whole concept of that nation.
Since yesterday, I have discovered that one does not have to take an Oath to sit in the Dail, although one does have to do so to be a Minister or to be the President. Indeed, at present, a citizen of the United Kingdom is President of the Irish Republic. However, as she is an Irish nationalist, and well known as such, she had no difficulty in taking the Oath, thereby deserting the whole concept of being a United Kingdom citizen. However, that is a side issue.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point. Although he says that no Oath is required for one's entry to the Dail, does he agree that everyone subscribing to the Irish nation is bound by the Irish constitution? I illustrate that by asking whether he recalls the court case in which five judges ruled that there was a "constitutional imperative" on all Irish people to achieve a united Ireland. They did not say how that would be achieved. Articles 2 and 3—the territorial claim—have been got rid of, but there is still a "constitutional imperative" on every person participating within the Irish nation to pursue the Irish interest.

Mr. Ross: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I had hoped that that court decision had been overthrown by events, but he is much more expert on that issue than I am, so I am prepared to go along with his word unless the Minister can clear up the matter. He is bound to have explored that possibility in depth, and to be in a position to give us a clear answer to the point made by my hon. Friend.
Let us imagine that a Member of this place arrives in the Dail. In those circumstances, the Government of Ireland, the people of Ireland and the Dail would be faced

with a very able man—a man from this side of the water would need to be very able to get elected to the Dail. He would probably have to stand as an independent. I could not see him being a member of Fianna Fail. He might join the Democratic Left. He would be a powerful voice, whose first duty, if he was a Member of Parliament, would be to this House, as a member of this nation. That powerful voice would be in the Dail, pushing a social and economic interest that might be at variance with that which at present—

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is putting a very interesting case, but the amendment talks about the Secretary of State being satisfied, so we are talking about a narrower case than that which the hon. Gentleman is putting at the moment.

Mr. Ross: I am trying to clarify to the Secretary of State the issues that he would have to consider before he reached that decision. I am also trying to help the right hon. Gentleman to have a clear understanding of all the implications of the question that would then be before him. As his behaviour in Northern Ireland has not been such as to convince many of us that he really understands the Irish question or the Irish people, never mind the Ulster people, he needs all the help that he can get.

The First Deputy Chairman: Yes, but all that the Secretary of State needs to know is about the confines of the amendment before us; and, knowing the Secretary of State, he is more than capable of doing that.

Mr. Ross: But the amendment must be set in the context—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman is convinced that the current Secretary of State is very capable of being satisfied, but he might not be in post for very long. Who knows? Someone less capable could succeed him.

Mr. Ross: Of course, and it would be possible to find someone less capable and with less understanding of the Irish situation, who could therefore become a bone of contention between this nation and Dublin. We really would not want that to happen. As I was saying when I was hauled back within order, Mr. Martin, I believe that that would be a problem.
People from other foreign legislatures might want to sit in the Dail. As you will appreciate, Mr. Martin, I would not be one of them. If there is one legislature on the face of this earth that I do not want to be a part of, it is Dail Eireann, so there will be no problem in dissuading me from moving in that direction. I am very happy where I am, and I hope to stay here for many years to come.
Another problem that arises is that Northern Ireland citizens are treated as Irish citizens by Dublin. For instance, if I wanted an Irish passport, all that I would have to do would be to drive down to Dublin with my photographs and get it. Whenever passport offices here have queues stretching around the block, many people have gone to Dublin. They have done so unwillingly, and because they could not afford to lose their holidays. They could always get a British passport later. In passing, it is sad that UK passport applicants have to pay for the Government's misdemeanours in that area, but that matter clearly falls outside the limits of the amendment.
An all-party commission in the Dail is examining the possibility of allowing the Northern Ireland Assembly some sort of representation in the Dail. I have referred to the efforts made by Sinn Fein-IRA to allow Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to sit in the Dail. That is a dangerous road to go down, and we would need to know the underlying theory behind the IRA's demand. When the Dail talks about representation, it might not mean voting representation, so that would not be much use to anyone wanting to go there.
There is an excellent Library research paper concerning how a Member of Parliament—or any elected representative—can carry out duties in two disparate, different legislatures. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who has left the Chamber, seems to manage fairly well in three—this sovereign Parliament, the European Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, he is a man of enormous energy, and he can possibly manage better than the rest of us.
How could anyone carry out their duties in this House—as a Minister of the Crown, perhaps—and then hop on a plane and get over for a vote in Dublin, or vice versa? I can make it door-to-door in four and half hours from my home to here, but I cannot imagine people doing that every day of the week. There is also the question of who would pay the travel costs. Would the travel costs from here to Dublin be paid by Dublin, and vice versa? What are the ramifications of this proposal?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment, and I think that he is aware of that. Perhaps he can get back to the confines of the amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not need to explain why. I am telling the hon. Gentleman that he is moving wide of the amendment.

Mr. Ross: I am always grateful for your guidance, Mr. Martin, and the guidance from the Chair is always sound—it is never wrong. However, I am trying to ensure that the Secretary of State, in reaching a decision, stays within the confines of reason and those elements to which he must give consideration.

Mr. Robathan: Is not it a qualification of membership of both legislatures that one must do one's job properly for constituents? If one has constituents in Leicestershire, for instance, one must look after them. However, if one has constituents in Connemara or Donegal, one must look after them. Surely those are two competing claims on the qualification for membership of both legislatures.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point which, down the years, has bedevilled those in the House who have looked at what should disqualify a Member of the House. One of the issues considered in terms of disqualification is the time available for a Member to carry out his duties in this place to his constituents.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Surely it is not just a question of the time demands on the hon. Members concerned, but the fact that the interests of the two different constituencies represented by the same Member of the two legislatures could well be in conflict with one another. How can that be resolved?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to have to keep interrupting proceedings. However, I am

reading the same amendment as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—it is about the Secretary of State being satisfied, and not about whether a person is capable of doing the job.

Mr. Ross: I just want to say one sentence in reply to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) raised that very point yesterday, and it was definitely not answered. My hon. Friend made the point succinctly and it is well worth while reading his speech because it clearly illustrates the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Swayne: It may be the lateness of the hour or the result of a momentary lapse of attention on my part, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be developing a powerful argument for voting against the amendments. Am I mistaken in thinking that he said that he was in favour of the amendment?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. To some extent, I am treating this is a probing amendment. However, if I am not satisfied with the answers that I receive from Ministers, I shall certainly vote for it. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has been a powerful supporter of the Unionist position and he has greater experience of these matters than I do. Therefore, I will, on this occasion, bow to his judgment. It will not take very much to persuade me to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to refer specifically to the words in the amendment. Will my hon. Friend interpret for me what he understands by the words that refer to the Secretary of State—and I hope to the House of Commons as well? It uses the phrase
unless he is satisfied that Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons are qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland".
What does my hon. Friend understand by the phrase "qualified for membership"? It could mean a whole range of things—their intellectual capacities, their educational qualifications or the fact that they are just Members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. How does he interpret those words?

Mr. Ross: That is one reason why I treat this as a probing amendment. Someone who goes to either part of the legislature of the Irish Republic must be an Irish citizen. However, as I pointed out yesterday, those in the Irish football team might not always be considered as members of the Irish nation. Some of them qualify to play for it because they have an Irish grandfather. I have heard the team described as the English second string, but it has done very well—and good luck to it.
I am curious about the provision and that is why I want my questions answered. Is the fact that a person is—or can claim to be—an Irish citizen sufficient to qualify him? What about Members of the House of Lords? I am not sure about the current position but, until recently, peers could not vote. Some well known peers have large properties in Ireland and live there part of the year. Are they qualified?
The Secretary of State has to make an order. Does that order have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament or will it be possible for it to appear in a preliminary form with white or green edges so that we could consider it and make representations about its amendment to the Secretary of State? What will the legislative procedure be to resolve the problems that are outlined in the amendment?

Mr. Fabricant: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. He asked whether the Secretary of State alone or the House should make the decision. Surely the judgment would not be a qualitative, but a quantitative one. It would not be a question of opinion, but of fact. It would relate to whether Members of this House or the other place are entitled to sit at that time in the Dail.

Mr. Ross: That is a matter which could be resolved only by reference to the rules of the Dail and by reference to the Government of the Irish Republic. Perhaps, we could set up a committee between this House and the Dail to discuss and explore all the problems that might arise if we made a mistake. For example, we would not want to say that the hon. Gentleman could go to the Dail and then find at the last minute that the party that was depending on him or the independents that wanted him would not be able to choose him. That would not be right at all. We have to be dead certain that all the implications have been thoroughly thought through, the lines are clear and we know exactly where we stand. Enough has been said to illustrate that there are several difficulties that must be explored.
I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 disqualified members of the Northern Ireland Executive from sitting in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State should bear that in mind. I note in passing that, at present, Members of the European Parliament cannot be members of the Northern Ireland Executive. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is not a member of the Executive, but the deputy leader of his party is. The same is true of the SDLP: the deputy leader is a member of the Executive, but the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is not. The two members of those parties who are members of the Executive are, of course, Members of the House of Commons, but the leaders of those two parties are debarred by the rules of the European Parliament, of which they are Members, from taking up posts in the Northern Ireland Executive. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), nods.
That example demonstrates that reciprocity is not easy to achieve. There are all sorts of rules, regulations and problems that the Government have not fully thought through. It is the Committee's duty to explore such matters and to seek explanations in the hope that, this evening, we might receive an answer to one of our questions. If we did, it would make such a pleasant change that we would hardly believe our luck. I do not expect an answer to any of my questions, but I do ask for one. If we do not get any answers, I am sure that we shall return to these matters on Report.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has complained about remarks made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. If he were to stand, the hon. Gentleman might be elected to the Dail—[Laughter.] It is possible—he would certainly have a better chance than I would. One has to think through the steps one must take to get elected to the Dail. The Secretary of State should listen carefully, because both he and his Under-Secretary are familiar with the single transferable vote system of election.
I believe that there are one or two Dail constituencies in Dublin that send five, six, seven or eight Members to the Dail. Let us take a four-Member constituency—the mathematics are easier to work out at this time of night. Only 20 per cent. of the votes plus one vote are needed to secure election: that is the quota the candidate needs to be home and dry. As one moves down the list, fewer and fewer votes are needed to secure election. Even if the hon. Member for St. Helens, South received a relatively small number of votes—the absolutely derisory vote that results from a by-election in a safe Labour seat or a council election, both of which attract extremely low turnout—he could in such a constituency be home and dry, a Member of the Dail. Other Members of the UK Parliament might be able to do the same. However, if the hon. Gentleman stood in a place like Donegal, where the number of seats is carefully controlled so as to ensure that it is far more difficult to get elected—Donegal is where the pro-Union population lives—he would find it impossible to get elected.
I shall not weary the House with a chapter and verse description of the STV system of election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I shall not do so, if only because you, Mr. Martin, might consider such a description of the workings of the STV system and of the way in which the count is done to be out of order. I know that hon. Members would find it interesting, but, if not quite out of order, I would be stretching the First Deputy Chairman's patience.

Mr. Roy Beggs: It would be breakfast time before we finished.

Mr. Ross: On many occasions, it has been breakfast time on the second day before the result is announced.

Mr. Brady: It may be out of order to go into detail about the single transferable vote, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has answered one of his earlier questions. With a multi-Member constituency, clearly a Member could come to this place and serve here while the other Members in the constituency worked for the constituents. That is one of the great failings of the multi-Member system.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a failing. However, he will understand that the Member who was carrying out his duties in this place would be throwing an extra burden on the other Members of the Dail elected. It would be possible for him to be only a representative of his party. The boundaries are often drawn as they are by the governing party because it knows how people vote. That Member could find himself getting into trouble with the Whips in the Dail, and we would not want that, would we?
An enormous number of points must be answered by the Minister when he responds to the debate. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has left us again. That is sad because he is not taking enough interest in the ramifications of the matter. It seems that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will respond.

Mr. Brady: To the single transferable vote point?

Mr. Ross: The STV was wished upon us in Northern Ireland by the House of Commons. I note that the Government have cold feet and do not want to wish it upon themselves. Long may that happy situation persist because it is the most abominable system. Having had experience of other forms of proportional representation in this place, there is a certain coolness among those on the Government Benches towards the concept.

Mr. John Hayes: With respect, I fear that the hon. Gentleman is straying a little far from the narrow confines of the amendment. I say that with respect, Mr. Martin. I draw him back to the specific point that is contained in the amendment about reciprocal arrangements and qualification. The hon. Gentleman has abbreviated his remarks generally, to the great loss of the Committee, and especially when he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about qualification. Was he speaking about legal qualification, and will he elaborate upon that in respect of the reciprocal arrangements? Or was he speaking about qualification in terms of political legitimacy? Will he elaborate on the issue and go into some detail in answering the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, which in my estimation he failed to answer?

Mr. Ross: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) arose because of his intervention. That being so, I did not have time to explore the point that he was raising. I wish that that time had been available to me because it might have been possible to have considered the issue in more depth. I shall keep in mind what he said and I hope that we can return to it on Report. It can be taken up in the House of Lords or perhaps when it returns to this place, having been properly amended. It is clear that the Bill needs many and various amendments that will be of great importance.

Mr. Fabricant: We all know that in this place we have role models. We have heroes whom we worship. It is fairly well known in the House of Commons that my right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is my hero. For that reason, I speak in favour of the amendment.
I was trying to get my head round the amendment, as we say in the broadcasting profession. I was trying to understand my right hon. Friend's motivation in tabling it. I think that the motivation was summed up admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), when he said, "Mr. Martin, it is all down to trust."
Before I entered the House of Commons, in 1992, when some would say I did a real job, although they would be unfair in saying that, I was involved in setting up radio stations in about 48 countries throughout the world. In

some of those countries one could easily come to a bargain; one simply shook a hand and the deal was done—for example, with the BBC in the United Kingdom, or in Holland. I would make an offer, it would be accepted and the deal would be done. In other circumstances, one could not always trust such a handshake, and reciprocity was required. If one wanted to enter into a contract, not only offer and acceptance but consideration were required.
12.30 am
Why do we feel that trust does not exist between us and certain elements with whom we have entered into negotiations in the past year? I do not wish to stray from the narrow terms of the amendment, but the answer is clear: trust does not exist because of decommissioning. When we entered into a contract with representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA, the terms made it clear that decommissioning would be undertaken. Yet, as we speak, at 31 minutes past the hour on 26 January, not one weapon or bullet has been handed over. Time ticks on.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Can my hon. Friend suggest the reason for Sinn Fein's failure to decommission in January or February if it intends to do so totally by May? Does that not suggest a lack of trust?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no scope for discussing decommissioning on amendment No. 2.

Mr. Fabricant: I always take your advice, Mr. Martin, but my hon. Friend's point is well made. If an action is to be completed by May, it could be taken in January, February or March. Failure to decommission creates doubt and lack of trust. I have now got my head around the problem, and I realise why my hero and right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst tabled the amendment: there is doubt about whether trust can exist between the parties involved. I believe that shady dealing might well occur. That is worrying.

Mr. Hayes: It is all very well to talk about slap and tickle while shaking hands with heroes and others around the world—I am sure my hon. Friend enjoyed that. However, although my hon. Friend argues that we are considering a matter of trust, we are in fact discussing qualification. As I suggested to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), qualification is either a legal matter or a broader issue. It may well be broader, and cover some of the subjects that we debated earlier, such as the ability to serve a constituency, conflict of interest and so on. Rather than entertaining us with stories of Holland and other exotic climes, my hon. Friend should concentrate on qualification, which is at the heart of the amendment.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend's incisive mind has cut to the point like a scalpel. He repeated a point that I made to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) when I said that the ability of a Member of Parliament to sit in another legislature was a qualitative, not a quantitative matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wants to put down a marker to the effect that trust cannot exist as long as decommissioning, and other


factors involved in the agreements that have been reached, have not been fulfilled equally by both sides of the bargain. When concessions are made continually by one side and not the other—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making what might be considered a Second Reading speech. It might have assisted him to read the amendment before rising.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I am reading the amendment now and I read it earlier too. It states that
the Secretary of State shall not make such an order unless he is satisfied that Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons are qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland"—
the Dail. I repeat that this is a quantitative matter, not a qualitative matter. It is not an analogue issue but a digital issue. It is either 1 or 0; yes or no. There is no rainbow. There is no spectrum. Either it is so or it is not so.
The reason for amendment No. 2 is a lack of trust. 1 thought that the Bill was fairly straightforward. The hon. Member for East Londonderry referred to an Act of 1920. I did not catch all the details and it is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber. If any hon. Gentleman could assist by explaining the 1920 Act, I shall be most grateful.

Mr. Beggs: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not for any hon. Member to give details of a different piece of legislation. This is a narrow amendment, and the hon. Gentleman should speak to it.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) agree that, despite the wording of the amendment, the reality is that it is simply a device to enable members of Sinn Fein-IRA to sit in both the Dail and the House of Commons? Let us face up to that.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's intervention refers to, but the Committee is debating amendment No. 2. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Bill may be a device to allow something to happen, it is one thing—but the Committee is debating not the Bill as a whole but a narrow amendment to it moved by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Fabricant: You are of course absolutely right, Mr. Martin. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Members of the Dail will only be allowed to sit in this House if we are allowed to sit in their place.

Mr. Bercow: Some members have focused on the word "qualified"—rather as bees focus on a honeypot. Does my

hon. Friend think that the critics of amendment No. 2 would have their concerns allayed if the word "eligible" were substituted for the word "qualified"?

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend, as ever, not only plays with words but uses them to the advantage of the Committee. It is not for me to speculate on what members of the Front Bench might wish to do.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Swayne: rose—

Mr. Fabricant: I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who tried to attract my attention earlier.

Mr. Swayne: The thrust of my hon. Friend's argument is that there is a lack of trust, which requires us to build reciprocity into the Bill because we cannot wait upon the expectation that reciprocity will be provided if we do not. What I cannot follow is whether that reciprocity is desirable or desired.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend asks a perceptive question. Is the amendment desired or desirable? Surprisingly enough, the amendment is not the question.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Fabricant: I will not give way immediately to my hon. Friend, who was so rude about my previous career, but I will give way to him in a moment. Surely the point is that we are putting down a marker.

Mr. Hayes: I meant no discourtesy when I referred to my hon. Friend's previous career. I bear him no grudges, as he well knows.
The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) seemed to be deeply confused, although my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield claims that he is a master of the language. He talked about eligibility and qualification as though they were significantly different in specific regard to the amendment. I suggest that if he looks carefully at the 1920 Act, he will understand that there is no significant difference and that eligibility for membership of either the House or the Irish Parliament lies at the heart of the amendment. Rather than entertaining us lavishly with stories about dancing over rainbows and all sorts of other interesting things, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield should draw attention to that specific point. I hope that he will do so with rather more speed than he has shown so far.

Mr. Fabricant: I am shocked, Mr. Martin. My hon. Friend is applying for your job. He may at least be trying to ingratiate himself and clearly wants to move on quickly, but he has missed the point and has not been following the arguments at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said, this is a question of trust. Why should we not trust those with whom we enter into a contract? That has everything to do with experience. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that experiences, whether


in business or negotiations over politics, colour one's mind as to whether one should enter into a contract with total trust. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst tabled the amendment simply because he has no grounds for trusting the other parties. Would it be right for the House of Commons to accept Members of the Dail to serve in it if there was no reciprocal agreement for Members of the House to serve in the Dail? The whole House would say that that would be wrong.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to my hon. Friend's argument with great care and ask for his interpretation of my view. It is possible that the amendment has been tabled to show that reciprocity is completely inoperable. If it is inoperable, the purpose of the Bill is unacceptable. Without reciprocity, it would be quite wrong for the House to grant to Members from another country and another Parliament the right and opportunity to sit in the House, and we have heard that reciprocity is out of the question and inoperable.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend raises a powerful point. He says that reciprocity does not exist, which is unacceptable to the House. Where has there been reciprocity so far? There has been concession after concession after concession, and they have all been one sided. I do not want to stray from the amendment, but I must say that although I was cautious at first about saying anything that I felt might damage the peace process, I see unfortunate parallels when I look back over the past few months and cast my mind back in history to what happened between 1936 and 1938. We have learned that if there is not reciprocity there will be defeat, cruelty and injustice.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings that it was perfectly valid to talk about my own experiences of negotiating in countries overseas. I believe that we have strong grounds to doubt the judgment and honesty of the other people in the negotiation and every reason to table and support amendments that ask for reassurance.

Mr. Hayes: I should like to make it quite clear that my attempt was only to bring my hon. Friend back to the confines of the amendment in respect of eligibility. I think he has moved with some speed on to that, and his final remarks clearly dealt with much of what I wanted him to cover. I did not mean any offence either to the Chair or to my hon. Friend, but that does not apply to the remarks I made about my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Mr. Fabricant: On those very warm notes, and with a feeling of touchy-feely, huggy-kissy reciprocity—as far as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings is concerned at least—I will rest my case.

Mr. Fallon: It is a peculiar feature of this amendment that both its proposers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), not only supported it but introduced arguments opposing it. Perhaps they were saving themselves the trouble of winding up their own debate. Who knows?
I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that I have exactly the same doubts about amendment No. 2 as I had about amendment No. 1. If one is opposed to the principle of the Bill, which my right hon. Friend signally is—he spoke against it with great distinction and voted against it not 24 hours ago—it is impossible to suggest to the Committee that it can somehow be improved by his amendment. If one is opposed to the principle that one cannot be subject to two sovereign states, that one cannot bear allegiance to two sovereign Parliaments, it is odd to suggest that that can simply be cured by reciprocity.
There is no logical limit to the point that my right hon. Friend makes. Let us suppose that the People's Republic of China offered us reciprocity. We could suggest one Member of this House who might well volunteer to be a member of the National Congress of China. But clearly that would be nonsense.
This leads me to wonder what motivated my right hon. Friend to propose this peculiar concept of reciprocity. I wonder whether there is some secret understanding that my right hon. Friend has negotiated with the Republic of Ireland, whether he has been given undertakings that the Republic of Ireland would welcome the candidacy of certain Members of this House. In tabling the amendment and advocating reciprocity, my right hon. Friend ought to come clean with the Committee and reveal any understandings that he has come to or that have been put to him about possible joint membership of the two legislatures.
I come, finally, to the crux of the amendment, which you, Mr. Martin, identified and about which there has already been some discussion: the whole question of qualification for membership. I would suggest to the Committee a further point, which lies not so much in the words "qualified for membership", although those words, as my hon. Friends have already pointed out, are fraught with ambiguity. There is also a problem with who is to be satisfied and the fact that it is the Secretary of State. In our system, the question of whether somebody is eligible to stand for Parliament is a matter of law, not a matter for the subjective judgment of a Secretary of State. It is a matter clearly set out in statute.
My right hon. Friend may have good and novel arguments for the reciprocity that he is putting forward, but I would ask him to address that specific point. Are we really right to leave to the subjective judgment of the Secretary of State—who is, whether we like it or not, a member of one political party—the decision as to whether candidates from other political parties are qualified to stand for membership of another legislature? That is a dangerous suggestion. The Chair has already indicated that it would be prepared to look kindly on manuscript amendments. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, even at this late stage, he could table an amendment making it clear that the definition of qualification for membership should be set down in statute, and not left to the judgment of a Secretary of State.

Mr. Brady: Surely the Secretary of State would be bound by the normal principles. He would have to exercise his discretion with a degree of reasonableness, and would be open to judicial review if he did not do so.

Mr. Fallon: That is precisely the sort of eventuality that we should guard against. It should not be for the


courts to decide who is eligible, after appeals, reviews, seats being declared void and so on. That is the whole point. We should set down in statute who is eligible to be a Member of this House. I do not want that to be left to the subjective judgment of the Secretary of State, to judicial review, or to an appeal process.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and I are overcome with curiosity about who wanted to be a member of the Congress of the People's Republic of China. We think that it could only be the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).

Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to deal with the south China question, but I will not allow myself to be tempted.
I think that my right hon. Friend needs to do a little more work on the amendment. I am not persuaded that simply proposing, negotiating or agreeing reciprocity will cure the faults that lie at the centre of the Bill. It is not possible to be a subject of two sovereign states, or to bear allegiance to two sovereign Parliaments. No amount of reciprocity with any assembly or Parliament in the European Union, the western world, China or anywhere else can deal with those fundamental faults.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has argued powerfully that two, three or four wrongs do not make a right. Does he agree, however, that it is particularly important in the context of amendment No. 2 to ensure clarity, and that discretion—fettered or otherwise—for the current incumbent of the post of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is especially dangerous, given that that right hon. Gentleman, whatever his talents, is a notoriously tricky customer?

Mr. Fallon: That is exactly the sort of suggestion that is bound to be made. Once the House decides to give discretion to any kind of Secretary of State, all kinds of questions are bound to be raised about that Secretary of State's party allegiance, his partiality, his own place in the peace process in Northern Ireland, and so forth.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will improve his amendment by removing the subjective test, and defining eligibility for membership in statute. Even if he is prepared to do that, however, I shall have deep reservations about the possibility of dealing with the whole question of dual loyalty simply by reciprocity. I do not think that that is enough, and, even if my right hon. Friend improves his amendment in the way that I suggest, unless he presents me with a much more compelling argument in favour of it, I shall not be prepared to vote for it.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the Committee appreciated the forceful arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). We missed him here yesterday. Like him, I am totally opposed to the Bill. Unlike him, I voted against it; but I know—because he assured me in the Lobby—that, had he been here yesterday, he would have voted against it too. He would also have heard what was said yesterday by my

hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), a former Northern Ireland Minister. He made some of the points that my right hon. Friend has made.
It is true that the amendment, which was moved so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), contradicts the argument of my hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire and for Sevenoaks that it is not seriously conceivable to have dual allegiance to two sovereign legislatures. It undoubtedly creates conflicts of allegiance, but the difficulty is that we have the Bill before us. The question is simple: having lost the Second Reading vote, do we turn our backs on the discussion, say that there is nothing we can do with the Bill and just let it go; or do we seek to amend it in some way to improve it, however miserable the improvement?

Mr. Swayne: Our contention is that, by multiplying the potential for wrongs, the amendment would make the Bill worse. [Interruption.]

Mr. Howarth: Did the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), my fellow prison officer from Dartmoor, wish to intervene? I am sorry. I thought that he wanted to intervene.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: Of course. I will take all interventions from New Forest.

Dr. Lewis: That is precisely the point. It is the first time that I have ever disagreed with an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Surely the point is that, rather than multiplying the wrongs, insistence on reciprocity creates the possibility of retaliation. If someone who is going to abuse his status in the House of Commons when he sits for the Dail is made aware of the fact that retaliation can occur, he may be less inclined to commit that abuse in the first place.

Mr. Howarth: That is a forceful argument from my hon. Friend, who is the embodiment of the thermo-nuclear deterrent. I do not think that any of us would wish to cross him, but there are arguments for the amendment. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will make a speech at some point and will have to answer a number of questions. The amendment gives us the opportunity to probe further how it came to pass that the Bill was brought before the House in this form and why it is being rushed through with such expedition.
The amendment is of a dual nature. It seeks to provide that Members of the House of Commons and the other place should be either qualified or eligible, depending on the word we want to use, for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland. That is the key issue. It is at the heart of the reciprocity argument. If, as is provided for in the Bill, Members of the Irish legislature are to be permitted to have the honour to be Members of this legislature, there should be reciprocity.
The question of how the conditions for that reciprocity are determined—whether the Secretary of State has to be satisfied, or whether another mechanism is provided—is a separate matter. However, the amendment provides us with the opportunity to test the good faith of those who are behind the promotion of the Bill. I do not believe that the Ministers are behind the promotion of the Bill. They are merely the agents. We are trying to find out not who the monkeys are, but who the organ grinder is.

1 am

Mr. James Clappison: Before my hon. Friend moves on to his next point, which I apprehend he will come to shortly, will he reflect a little further on the matter of reciprocity? Is it not a fact that reciprocity characterises many of the special arrangements between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, not least in matters such as the common travel area? Would it not be a shame to depart in this Bill from the principle that underlies those arrangements? Might not such a departure bring to an end the undoubted good will that exists between the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic?

Mr. Howarth: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that there are already substantial spheres of reciprocity and that the Bill would mark a substantial departure from that precedent, he owes it to the Committee to give us a rather more detailed exposition of the point. I, for one, feel that he has only touched on the point and that we need a very much more comprehensive explanation of the extent to which arrangements between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are subject to reciprocity.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will be able to enlighten me more substantially.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have been provoked to intervene also by the Minister, who I know enjoys my interventions on this type of subject.
The amendment would remedy a defect that would otherwise be present in the Bill, by ensuring continuation of the reciprocity that is a characteristic of so many arrangements between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. By contrast with what has been suggested by at least one Labour Member, the amendment is all about promoting good will between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

Mr. Howarth: Although I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend's argument, I still share some of the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon)—that the amendment would strike at aspects of the Bill's principle. Nevertheless, I support amendment No. 2 because I believe that the debate on it will provide a mechanism by which we shall be able to get to some of the truth of the matter, which we have not yet heard.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) asked the key question that has run throughout our debates today: why have the Government introduced the Bill? Is it part of a deal with Sinn Fein?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a case that should have been made on Second Reading. We are debating not why the Government introduced the Bill, but amendment No. 2.

Mr. Howarth: Mr. Martin, you are absolutely right, and I apologise for transgressing. It is just that I thought that the question was part of the theme running through our debates.

Mr. Bercow: I should like to clarify my hon. Friend's assessment of amendment No. 2. Does he agree that the amendment, whatever imperfections it may contain, is at least a variant on the theme of a multilateralist approach to the issue, whereas the Government's opposition to the amendment is emblematic of their preference, once again, for unilateralism?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a charge that the Minister will have to answer. I am sure that the Minister is making careful notes—actually he is not, but he should be—so that he is prepared to answer the serious questions that I am asking him. He will have to answer them.

Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it in order for hon. Members to read books, novels or newspapers in Committee?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Newspapers should not be read in Committee, but I do not see any hon. Member reading one.

Mr. Howarth: I will try not to give you a reason to rise to your feet again, Mr. Martin, so that you can enjoy sitting in that comfortable Chair.
As I was saying before my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) interrupted with his point of order, I believe that the amendment would provide us with an opportunity to test the good faith of those who are behind the Bill. Adopting the amendment's implicit reciprocity provisions would go some way towards sending out a signal that the Government are not trying to give a sop to Sinn Fein.
I cannot understand why the Government are adopting what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) called a unilateralist approach. Why is the Bill a one-way proposition? Why can Members of the Dail become Members of this Parliament, but we cannot go there?
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) spoke extremely interestingly earlier. I am only sorry that he could not enlighten us further. He asked what representations Ministers made to their Irish counterparts about reciprocity. Yesterday the Minister said:
Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 28.]


The concept of interparliamentary links implies links in both directions, but the Bill offers only a one-way link.
I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee with whom the discussions were held. From what he said yesterday one is entitled to assume that such discussions took place. Which Ministers were involved? Did they propose to their counterparts in the Irish Republic that this House would be likely to demand reciprocity if the Bill were introduced here? If so, what was the response of Irish Ministers? Did they say that people in the Republic could not permit people who had taken the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen to become Members of the Dail?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that, were the Government to come clean about the purpose of the Bill, this amendment and others would be rendered unnecessary? Would not the Government then be able to know where they stand much earlier than would otherwise be the case?

Mr. Howarth: I am not sure that that would render this amendment unnecessary. However, it would at least to some extent curtail a debate characterised by the total lack of confidence among Conservative—and Liberal Democrat—Members about the Government's motivation in introducing the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I say again that the hon. Gentleman should not worry himself about the Bill but should consider the amendment before us.

Mr. Howarth: I apologise, Mr. Martin, for making you get to your feet again.

Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: If my hon. Friend is not going to be abusive to me, I shall be delighted to give way to him.

Mr. Hayes: Abuse is my stock in trade, Mr. Martin. In an effort to concentrate his remarks on the specific issue in the amendment, will my hon. Friend give us his views on qualification or eligibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) tautologically—and thus rather uncharacteristically—describes it? What effect does that have on ministerial discretion?
The amendment deals with qualification and the Secretary of State's judgment about it. My hon. Friend has not elaborated on this so far, and the whole Committee is waiting, with great anticipation, to hear his views.

Mr. Howarth: I am touched that my hon. Friend should think that the Committee is waiting for my views on qualification. I said that I thought that the amendment was in two parts and that the satisfaction of the Secretary of State, or some other mechanism, was one aspect of it. I shall not be able to satisfy my hon. Friend in giving a great discourse on my views, because I regard the other aspect of the amendment as the more important.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that simply to repose confidence in the Secretary of State's ability to be satisfied or otherwise as to the eligibility of members of the legislature of the Republic

of Ireland to be Members of this House is unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, like all of us, had very little time in which to draft the amendment. In deference to him, I think that he has done a damn good job for the Committee in the short time available to him.
I wish to draw my remarks to a close, because I do not wish to detain the Committee too long. I have put fundamental points to the Minister. Were there discussions with his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland? What did they entail? Why was a clause providing for reciprocity not included in the Bill?
Membership of the House is a privilege and an honour. Unless the Government are prepared to accept the amendment, they are saying that we do not value such membership to the same extent as do other people in the House, because we are prepared to trade it away in return for nothing. I think that that is unacceptable.

Mr. Thompson: I am happy to speak in support of the amendment. The Bill lacks a provision of this kind. We have to ask why such a provision was not incorporated in the Bill from the start. It seems extraordinary that any Government of this United Kingdom would be willing to give a concession to the Republic of Ireland without, at the same time, requiring that a similar concession be given to us. Not to do so shows a severe lack of confidence in the United Kingdom and, indeed, a dereliction of duty to the United Kingdom.
1.15 am
Furthermore, we need to ask whether reciprocity was asked for when the Government were talking to Sinn Fein-IRA about the Bill. When they were talking to the Government of the Republic of Ireland about the Bill, did they ask whether there would be a quid pro quo from the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Swayne: In what way does the inclusion of the amendment respect the integument of the United Kingdom? Can the hon. Gentleman honestly say that he would have looked more favourably on the Bill if it had included the amendment in support of which he speaks?

Mr. Thompson: Of course, we do not like the Bill. We would like to have nothing to do with it. However, the reality is that the Government have introduced the Bill—whether we like it or not. Furthermore, they will pass the Bill whether we like it or not. As the Bill will be passed in any case, it is surely in our interests to try to amend it to the benefit of this place. We should point out its difficulties and weaknesses, and try to make some improvement.
It is incomprehensible that we are prepared to make such a concession to a foreign country without reciprocal action from that country. It is right that provisions such as amendment No. 2 should be tabled, and debated in Committee, in the hope that the Government might see the error of their ways, undergo a conversion and accept the amendment.
Did the Government ask for a quid pro quo, and, if they did so, was it refused? In the light of the answer to those questions, we will be able to consider the Government's status.
The amendment might have been better worded. All we want to know is whether, if Members of the Dail can sit in this House, Members of this House can sit in the Dail. The only way for that to be achieved is for a similar Bill to be introduced and passed in the Dail.
When the Secretary of State was appointing days for the consideration of this Bill, the only question he should have asked himself was whether a Bill would be put

through the Dail giving the same rights to Members of this Parliament as we are prepared to give to Members of the Dail.
That would be a natural question for any sovereign Parliament to ask when dealing with matters that relate to a foreign country. The amendment is necessary and should command the full support of the whole Committee.

Mr. Brady: I shall be brief, given the lateness of the hour.
I have some comments to make on points that have been touched on, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who has briefly left the Chamber. My hon. Friends have discussed whether
qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland
is the most appropriate form of words. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggested that "eligible" might be a more appropriate word than "qualified". I do not consider that that achieves the desired effect. Nor am I entirely happy with the form of words that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggests, because I am not certain that the Secretary of State could be satisfied that Members of the House or of the other place were qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland. However, one could expect him to satisfy himself that they were not disqualified.
There is an important difference because, in removing the disqualification that applies to Members of the Irish Parliament in terms of a right to sit in our Parliament in the United Kingdom, we should be seeking something that is equivalent to that in the spirit of the reciprocity of which my right hon. Friend has spoken. For the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that Members are not disqualified would achieve that purpose.
I also wish to pursue the use of the word "either" in
qualified for membership of either House of the legislature".
Does that presuppose that Members would be qualified for, or not disqualified from, membership of only one or the other, or must that wording imply that they would be eligible to sit in both Houses of the Irish Parliament?
Earlier in the debate on amendment No. 2 there was much talk about rights—of this Parliament and its Members, and those that we in the United Kingdom should be able to expect—and the theme of reciprocity was developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield focused on trust and whether the Irish Parliament might make an important gesture of good faith and good will to encourage good will in the peace process, in the way that the Government are seeking to do by introducing this measure.
I should like to approach the issue from another angle, taking a much longer view. What good reason might there be for a Member of the House to seek to be a Member of the Dail? It seems to me that, perversely, there is a better case for a Member of the House to seek membership of the Dail than the converse. It arises from the membership of this country and of the Irish Republic of the European Union, and, more particularly, from the fact that this country is a net contributor to European Union funds and the Irish Republic a net beneficiary of them.
Where we and the British taxpayer are expected to contribute money from which the Irish Republic can benefit, there is a good case for British politicians to take an interest in how British taxpayers' money is spent in the Irish Republic: a better case than there is, as the Bill stands, for Members of the Dail to sit in this Parliament and seek to have an input into the process—

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman should consider the good use to which the Republic of Ireland

has put that money in terms of infrastructure. There are other lessons that we could learn, perhaps with regard to membership of the euro.

Mr. Brady: I do not wish to be drawn on to the question of the euro.[HON MEMBERS: "Go on!"] Perhaps I should. Clearly, if the UK were to join the euro, it would further underline the interdependency of the economies of the two countries. However, that would be equally true of the British and German economies, and that is outwith the scope of the amendment.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the amendment.

Mr. Brady: But that was exactly the point I was making, and that was why I was saying—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not say "But." He should get on to the amendment.

Mr. Brady: I am sure that you are right to make that point, Mr. Martin. I hoped that I was making the point that it would be wrong to go too far down the euro road, which the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) sought to take me down. On infrastructure, Members of this House may have a legitimate input into the question of how British taxpayers' money is spent in other EU countries, particularly the Republic of Ireland. As he knows, there are infrastructure projects that can benefit the north of Ireland as well as the south, and there are some that benefit one or the other. It is a valid point.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right—consistent with your strictures, Mr. Martin—not to seek to refer to extraneous matters. However, on the strength of all that we have learned so far, is not reciprocity from the Republic of Ireland no more likely than the arrival of Billy Bunter's postal order or satisfaction of the convergence criteria for joining the euro?

Mr. Brady: Whether the postal order is in euros or sterling, I should not follow my hon. Friend in that direction. We are debating not whether reciprocity is about to be offered by the Republic of Ireland but whether we, as a sovereign Parliament, should insist upon reciprocity if we are to allow the Government to pursue the novel concept in the Bill.
I am arguing that we ought to require reciprocity from the Republic of Ireland—not that we should expect it to be volunteered, but that we ought to make it clear, as a sovereign Parliament, that we are not prepared to offer one side of the equation without seeing the other side brought in. That is what the amendment would achieve, and that is why Members on both sides of the Committee ought to support it.

Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too far away from the use made of the money on infrastructure, will he consider the tremendous advantage


that the Irish Republic has gained in its work across the Irish sea between the Dublin area and north Wales as opposed to between Larne and Stranraer, which has had a bad effect on both Scotland and Northern Ireland—all with EC money?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Brady: I agree, Mr. Martin.
Far from dealing purely with the question of rights, what we are owed, what ought to be given to us and what we ought to expect in return for something that we have given away, the behaviour of the British Government, and the nature of the Bill, are not appropriate in the modern age. The Bill has the whiff of coming from an imperial Parliament behaving in a rather high-handed way—not as it would in dealing with an equal sovereign Parliament, but as it would in dealing with a junior, subsidiary Parliament. We might be saying, "This is something that we are prepared to give away to Members of this small overseas subsidiary Parliament because we do not treat it as an equal sovereign Parliament." Ministers should consider the implications of pursuing such a policy. Surely, in 2000, we must treat the Irish Parliament as an equal sovereign Parliament and not as one that depends on the Westminster Parliament for favours and scraps thrown from the table. We should treat it on an equal footing. In the spirit of generosity that Ministers appear to have in wishing to extend the right to membership of this Parliament, the Irish Parliament could offer similar rights to Members of this House.

Mr. Forth: I find my hon. Friend's argument fascinating, but it assumes that we know what the relationship between the two Parliaments was during the process. We know either that the Irish asked for the Bill or that they did not and that we are offering it to them for nothing. Reciprocity arises in that context. I challenge him directly. Does he know how the Bill arose and the role of the Irish Parliament in it?

Mr. Brady: I shall come to that. I wish that I could promise my right hon. Friend real enlightenment. Sadly, Ministers have been opaque or reluctant to comment on the background to the Bill, but certain private comments outside the Chamber have suggested that some kind of deal may have led to the Bill being introduced at this time. Ministers have not told us whether there has been an approach from the Government of the Republic or whether they made an approach to that Government to request reciprocity. There has been no suggestion of whether there has been any contact—diplomatic or otherwise—on that matter. I am afraid that, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have been left in the dark.

Mr. William Ross: If we knew why the Bill had been introduced, we would have a clear idea of what was going on and knowledge—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We have heard that point again and again. It has no place on this amendment.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, because I feel a little tired. I am keen to conclude as quickly as I can.
One final aspect has not been dealt with, and Ministers, possibly with some inspiration, may be able to set my mind at rest about it. What are the implications of the Bill if amendment No. 2 is not accepted? Will it stand under the European treaties or will it constitute discrimination? I shall not stray into a discussion of tuition fees, but we have seen the relevance of the discrimination provisions of the treaties whereby it is not possible to discriminate against the citizens of one member state as opposed to those of another.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend knows that I do not have the great depth of knowledge of constitutional matters that he does. Is he saying that we can have Greeks in the Chamber as a consequence of the Bill?

Mr. Brady: I would not pretend to have huge constitutional knowledge. Colleagues on—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pretend to go down the road along which he was invited.

Mr. Brady: No, indeed, Sir Alan. However, it is important that Ministers answer the point of law as to whether the possibility has been fully investigated that under European treaties discrimination may be held to arise if we extend to the citizens of one of our EU partner countries the right to sit in Parliament and to hold office in this country in a salary or fee-paying post, but deny that same right and freedom to the citizens of another EU partner country.

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend speaks of rights and freedoms, but the amendment referred specifically to qualification and eligibility. That brings us to the critical issue at the heart of the amendment: whether that means legal qualification or something broader. If we stray into the field of rights and freedoms, that qualification might be interpreted more broadly. However, I do not see it that way, and I should be grateful if he would comment on that highly pertinent matter.

Mr. Brady: I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate. I am sure that he can develop that argument far better than I can. He says, rightly, that we might be dealing with rights and freedoms; however, given the constraints of the amendment and its reference to someone being "qualified" and the Secretary of State being "satisfied" as to that person's qualification, we have to interpret that as implying some legal form of qualification. I do not believe that it can be interpreted to encompass those broader issues. However, my hon. Friend might be able to persuade us that it can.

Mr. Forth: While my hon. Friend is exploring the EU aspects of the amendment, may I draw his attention to the fact that the Bill contains no reference to its being


compatible with the European convention on human rights? I thought that Ministers were under an obligation to assess the degree to which Bills comply with that convention. Following his incisive analysis of the European dimension, it strikes me that the Bill might breach the convention in that it does not extend full reciprocity to members of legislatures in countries that are signatories to that convention.

Mr. Brady: My right hon. Friend is too kind, but I fear that, for once, I must differ from his analysis. I suspect that, in scrutinising the Bill as closely as he has done, he did the obvious thing and folded it back on itself, for, on the covering page, there is such a statement. It makes it clear that the Home Secretary considers the Bill to be within the terms of the European convention on human rights; however, it makes no reference to and offers no analysis of wider issues of European law and treaties.
I draw the Minister back to a key question. At a time when the Government—contrary to the wishes of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself—are taking this country further into an integrated Europe in which national boundaries are diminished, we are tonight enshrining a new sort of discrimination, under which Members of the Irish Parliament can sit in the UK Parliament, but Members of the French, German and other European Parliaments cannot. Unless Ministers can give an assurance that they have examined the legal implications and that the Bill has a clean bill of health in that respect, we must at least contemplate making amendment No. 2, which would lessen the discrimination. Perhaps Ministers would prefer to table their own amendment on Report.

Mr. Hayes: If my hon. Friend refuses to deal with the question of qualification—I respect his right to do so, even after all I have done for him—will he at least deal with the issue of discretion? The amendment states that there would be a degree of ministerial discretion. If, as he suggests, there are legal constraints on the powers of the House and other alien bodies, that discretion would appear to be minimal. Will he comment on that matter?

Mr. Brady: I think that Sir Alan might wish to guide me that discretion would be the better part of valour. I shall leave my hon. Friend to elucidate his point. I am sure that it is valid and that he will advance a cogent argument.
I ask the Minister to make a simple, clear and unequivocal statement to the effect that advice has been taken and that there is absolute certainty within the Home Department and the Northern Ireland Office that the Bill will not lead to contravention of the European treaties.

Mr. Robathan: The amendment, which relates to reciprocity, goes to the heart of the Bill. Why should we be qualifying some people to come to this Parliament if we are not qualified to go to another Parliament?
I could not attempt to emulate some of the excellent speeches that have been delivered. I found my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) extremely persuasive. My hon. Friend the

Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) was equally persuasive, but in another way. I find myself in a quandary. I cannot attempt to emulate either my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) in terms of entertainment value, on which I congratulate him warmly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has stolen one or two of my arguments—

Mr. Brady: I apologise.

Mr. Robathan: That is all right. I shall try to advance them in my own way.
I wish to raise one or two points that have not been taken up so far in the debate on the amendment, and they go to the heart of reciprocity. The day before yesterday—I look at the clock—I attended more than half of the debate on Second Reading. I thought that I heard the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department say that the Irish Government were considering some form of reciprocal arrangements for Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would confirm that, either now or when he responds to the debate. That is important. Considering is insufficient but at least we would have some understanding of where the Government stand.
As I understood the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he responded to the previous debate, I should not expect him to make his entire position clear at this stage, but that must be done before the end of the debate.
If the Irish Government are considering reciprocity, there is no reason why the British Government should not accept the amendment outright. Surely we would not wish to be seen pre-empting the Irish Government, or moving with undue haste, when that Government have yet to come to their firm conclusion and make their own plans clear for British parliamentarians in the Irish Parliament. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position when he responds to the debate.
The amendment does not affect me because I do not wish to be a Member of the Dail. I suspect that not many Members of this Parliament do. It is quite a long way away and I am quite busy enough being a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. Indeed, I am very busy, it now being about 1.45 am. It seems that there must be a trade off if we believe that we should have the Bill in the first place, which I do not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West mentioned the legal position, which is important. On the European convention on human rights, the front of the Bill states that "Mr. Secretary Straw" believes:
In my view the provisions … are compatible with the Convention".
I am not a lawyer, but, without reciprocity, my human rights and those of all hon. Members may be infringed because we would be giving away something for nothing, and our granting of a right would not be reciprocated. The matter might be open to judicial review at the European Court of Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has overstepped the mark recently and has trespassed on matters it was not envisaged that it would consider when it was established at the end of the second world war to prevent those horrors from recurring.

Mr. Clappison: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. He should not rely too much on the statement of compatibility on the face of the Bill, because such statements come up with the rations. To prove a breach of the convention on human rights, one of the rights has to be breached. I have considered the point carefully, and I do not know which right the Bill breaches. Perhaps my hon. Friend can explore that.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is an eminent lawyer and knows far more about the law and the convention on human rights than I do. However, many cases of extraordinary depth are taken to the European Court of Human Rights and I am worried that the British Government may be in trouble because of the Bill. I agree that the statement of compatibility comes up with the rations, but let us consider the European Court of Justice, where there might be more scope for challenging the legislation than in the European Court of Human Rights if there is no reciprocity. Perhaps my hon. Friend can advise me about that.
We are members of the great European Union, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If a Member of the Dail can sit in this Chamber, I should be able to sit in the Dail. To revert to the point about the European Court of Human Rights, a lack of justice or fairness that the Bill creates might be challenged under judicial review.
Let us consider trust. There is no reason to distrust the Irish Government if they are considering reciprocity, although Charles Haughey was convicted of being a gun runner and Albert Reynolds jumped the gun and shook hands with Gerry Adams on the steps of the Dail on the first day of the first ceasefire that the IRA declared. Nevertheless, there is no reason to mistrust the Irish Government

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the amendment. I stress to the Committee that if the same argument is played over and over, Standing Order No. 42 will be invoked.

Mr. Robathan: I bow to your judgment, Sir Alan, but could you briefly tell me what Standing Order No. 42 is?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will find out if he continues on his present course.

Mr. Robathan: I shall report to your study afterwards, Sir.
In the bounds of the amendment and reciprocity, I was trying to develop the argument that trust must exist between the two parties. We are told that the Irish Government are considering reciprocity. We are expected to take that on trust. However, in Irish politics, trust has been singularly lacking. We must also rely on the Secretary of State to make

an order with which we are satisfied. I am happy to trust the Secretary of State but I know that a large number of Government Members do not.

Mr. Hayes: Inasmuch as trust is relevant to the amendment, if we are to trust the Secretary of State to interpret who is qualified, we need to understand what is meant by qualification. If it is a matter of rights—as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady)—there may be a call on some other body that has responsibility for rights. If it is a more narrow definition, that discretion will not be so wide ranging.

The Chairman: Order. Tedious repetition can arise in interventions as well. I have heard that point enough times.

Mr. Robathan: I shall not therefore respond to my hon. Friend, although he makes a good point.
The qualification for this House is election by one's constituents to come to this place. We do not know what will be the qualification for the House of Lords in the near future. We await a response to the Wakeham report and are in a state of flux. We have to trust the Government to produce stage 2 but they have not said when.
What qualifications must Members of the Dail fulfil in reciprocity before being allowed to become Members of the House of Lords? We know that the Prime Minister intends to achieve parity between the number of Labour and Conservative Members in the House of Lords. How will an Irish Member of the Irish legislature—Senate or Dail—satisfy the qualifications? Few will be able to satisfy the qualifications we have seen recently, such as sharing a flat with the Prime Minister when first living in London—as did Lord Falconer.
In drawing my remarks to a close—[HoN. MEMBERS] "No".—I have nearly finished my remarks but I hope that the Minister will address these points when he winds up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who is not in his place, raised interesting points about achieving reciprocity using two Oaths of Allegiance. That is a very old concept. If I may quote badly from the Bible, a man cannot serve two masters. It would be difficult for Members of this House, having sworn the Oath of Allegiance, to accept reciprocity in the Irish Parliament—for all the reasons that people understand.
I am conscience of your remarks, Sir Alan, about Standing Order No. 42—which I shall go away and read—so I shall draw my comments to a close.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Sir Alan. May I, through you, invite a member of the Government Front Bench to say how they propose to proceed? We started this debate more than eight hours ago, at 5.43pm. We have completed one whole debate and 11 debates are scheduled. We have completed four amendments or new clauses and there are 23 amendments or new clauses to debate. My grade in A-level maths was rather poor, but I have worked out that at this rate, we will not complete the business this side of 2.30pm.
It is obvious that the Government want us to lose tomorrow's business. If that is an intelligent way of treating the public, international development questions,


Prime Minister's Question Time, the Financial Services and Markets Bill and a ten-minute Bill, let it be on the Government's head.
It would be more sensible for the Government to agree—if they can do so—that, with co-operation between the parties, time could be found to complete consideration of the Bill. Perhaps a full day could be given to that, should there be a gap between the debate and the end of the deliberation. I wonder whether you, Sir Alan—through your good offices—could allow a Minister to say whether a more sensible way of proceeding might be available to us, rather than going on, as we are all quite able to do, for another 13 hours without completing our consideration. The Government have implicitly referred to the great sense of urgency in respect of dealing with the Bill, but we may have to consider it on another day.

The Chairman: That was a very long point of order. The House has passed a motion saying that the business can proceed until any hour and I have not received any intimation that it is to be invited to depart from its decision. Unless someone intervenes, there is nothing more I can add and we must proceed.

Mr. Maginnis: Reciprocity goes to the heart of the Bill. It should be drawn to Members' attention that Sinn Fein, for which the Bill has been drafted, boycotted the Irish Parliament for more than the first 70 years of its existence, although amazing progress has been made. It boycotted the Dail in 1921 and did not lift that boycott until the 1990s. We have all been puzzled about why we should have a unilateral accommodation, but I shall not repeat that question; you, Sir Alan, know very clearly why it puzzles me, as it has puzzled those who have articulated it again and again during our proceedings.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman referred to the 70-year boycott, but does he accept that we could consider the home rule incident of 1886, in which it was clearly stated that Mr. Parnell would certainly have preferred the exclusion of the Irish Members from the House? The irony is that, far from a policy along the lines of Mr. Parnell's being adopted, the exact opposite—including rather than excluding the Irish Members from the House—is being implemented.

Mr. Maginnis: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's erudition. I am afraid that my academic knowledge is not as great as his. I am particularly concerned about what little I have heard from those on the Treasury Bench. I should perhaps dwell on the special relationship, which was emphasised early and repeatedly by the Minister on Second Reading. I hope that a special and honourable relationship based on trust and reciprocal confidence is developing, although such a special relationship was not terribly obvious to me in the years when my friends—members of the security services—were fighting the IRA and finding that every impediment was put in the way of the extradition of terrorists.
2 am
I concede the point, in latter-day terms, of a special relationship, however. If that latter-day relationship is to develop, I wonder why this House proposes to adopt a different attitude to Sinn Fein from that currently being adopted by the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, who has clearly stated—I think during his recent visit to South Africa—that he would not countenance having members of Sinn Fein in a coalition Government which he led in the Dail. He has indicated that such co-operation with an organisation which retains a terrorist army, with its weapons and explosives, would not be something that a self-respecting Irish Taoiseach could contemplate.
How do we come to a situation in which—as is now quite apparent—we make a provision exclusively to allow members of Sinn Fein to be members of the legislature in Dublin or of any other legislature, whether it be this sovereign Parliament or one of the devolved assemblies?

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend has said that the position between ourselves and the Irish Republic is improving, and he mentioned extradition. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the case of Mr. Fusco has been resolved, and that he is being extradited?

The Chairman: Order. That is quite outside the scope of the amendment, and I think the hon. Member knows it. May I also say to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) that we cannot have another debate on Second Reading? The House has given a Second Reading to the Bill and has therefore agreed its principle. I cannot listen to arguments now about that principle; I can listen only to arguments about the particular amendment we have in front of us.

Mr. Maginnis: Sir Alan, you will have noted that I have been particularly careful not to stray into the old Second Reading debate. I particularly emphasized—

The Chairman: Order. I have ruled that in my opinion the hon. Member most certainly strayed in his remarks immediately before the intervention. That is precisely where he strayed, and I do not wish to hear him stray there again.

Mr. Maginnis: I deeply regret it, Sir Alan, if I strayed. I have been endeavouring to stick with the basis on which reciprocity might be achieved, and I intend to discover whether in fact reciprocity is possible, given the constitutional position that currently exists within the Irish Republic. I hope that it is possible for me to try to discover that.
One thing that some hon. Members seem not to understand is that I, as a member of the region called Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, am accorded by the Irish constitution a special privilege, in that I am to be cherished equally as one of the children of the Irish nation. The same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). If that is the case, I have no doubt that if I sought to stand, as Austin Currie and John Cushnahan have done, for a seat in an Irish Republic constituency, I would be permitted to do so.
The inequality—in terms of this Bill being brought forward by this Parliament—is that someone living in Scotland, England or Wales would not be cherished as a child of the nation; nor could that person be. Hence some Members of this House claim that such reciprocity is not possible within the terms of the Irish constitution.
A question then arises that has been touched on, although not in any depth, by other speakers. Does a Bill that facilitates matters for Northern Ireland Members such as myself, but excludes Members from Scotland and England and Wales, discriminate? If this Bill discriminates, I believe that it infringes the European convention on human rights. Therein lies a major problem, in terms of what is in the Bill and deemed to be effective on the authority of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the European Court of Human Rights. Did he listen to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who said that there might be a breach of European Court of Justice rules whereby it would be wrong to discriminate against some European Union countries while allowing others to take part in representations in the Dail or, indeed, in this Parliament?

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to get into the bad habit of repeating himself, or repeating what has been said by other Members, because neither is permissible. I also hope that he is not going to get into the habit of turning his back on the Chair.

Mr. Maginnis: Thank you, Sir Alan.
I do not pretend to be an expert on European law, but I know about the emphasis that Government place, again and again, when they introduce Bills in the House of Commons applying to Northern Ireland. When we debated the Patten report—I do not want to alarm you, Sir Alan; I simply want to illustrate a point—the human rights element was repeatedly emphasised. This Bill, however, contravenes the human rights of Members of Parliament from Scotland, England—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just made a statement about a Bill to which the House has already given a Second Reading. It is not permissible for him to start to argue about a Bill to which the House has given a Second Reading—

Mr. Cash: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I am on my feet.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) must confine his remarks to the amendment. He is straying outside it, and I must ask him not to return to matters relating to Second Reading.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Sir Alan. An interesting point has occurred to me following remarks that I have just heard about the class of persons affected by the Bill, and the manner in which different persons within that class are treated. I should like a ruling on this, Sir Alan. Is it possible that—if we take the House of Commons as a class—the Bill is hybrid? Clearly, on the basis of the

arguments that I have just heard, there are distinctions to be drawn within that class which, on adjudication, could cause it to be construed as such.

The Chairman: That is not a point on which the occupant Chair is entitled to rule. It is a matter of public policy.

Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan.

The Chairman: Order. I have ruled on that point of order. Unless he has an entirely fresh one—

Mr. Cash: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot be on his feet if I am on mine. I have said that I can accept only a different point of order, as I have just ruled on his previous one. If the hon. Gentleman has a fresh point of order, I will listen to it.

Mr. Cash: With the greatest respect, Sir Alan, the question whether this is a matter of public policy is not exclusively one that deals with hybridity. I asked whether there was hybridity, on which an adjudication may be required from the Speaker.

The Chairman: I am satisfied that there is no question of hybridity in relation to the Bill.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis: I will.

Mr. Robathan: I should like to raise specifically the question that the hon. Gentleman was addressing—whether the failure to ensure the reciprocity mentioned in the amendment would be open to judicial review. We have mentioned that before, but did not explore all the avenues. I am particularly concerned about that. The Home Secretary has said that he does not believe that the measure could be open to judicial review; but does the hon. Gentleman have any faith in the Home Secretary's recent judgments on various cases in the public domain, be it Tyson, Pinochet or whoever?

Mr. Maginnis: I will not be tempted to make an adjudication on either Pinochet or Tyson, but I believe that, on this issue, the Secretary of State is in error. The Minister has an obligation to persuade me otherwise. He can do so by indicating how, while the negotiations were being conducted—

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis: I will, but I should like to develop that point.

Mr. Hayes: I want to be absolutely clear about the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he saying that the amendment invalidates the Bill on the ground that it introduces measures that depend on equivalence between the two Parliaments? Where that equivalence does not exist


because of constitutional bars, surely the amendment would damage the Bill; indeed, it would make it impossible to implement.

Mr. Maginnis: That is not exactly what I am saying. Again, I am always self-conscious about the guidance that I receive, but I will try to clarify the point, with your indulgence, Sir Alan. I am saying that, within the scope of my knowledge of the Irish constitution, reciprocity is not possible at this stage, but that it should be sought if we are not to find ourselves with a Bill that discriminates, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) suggested, against a class—that class being hon. Members.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he is saying that there is a constitutional bar, surely it would not be a matter that ever came before any external alien court, Parliament or body; it would relate to existing arrangements in respect of the Irish constitution. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman is saying that something is not possible and, on the other, he is saying that it would contravene European law.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to blind me with science.
I was saying that the House is entitled to insist on a caveat that, unless there is reciprocity embracing all hon. Members, so that they are eligible to be Members of the Dail, the Bill's provisions should not be implemented. I cannot stop the Bill becoming law, but it should contain the caveat that its provisions cannot be implemented until the inequity within it has been dealt with.

Mr. Cash: I am extremely interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. With great respect to you, Sir Alan—with whom I am not prepared to disagree at this juncture—I simply say that the point about equity is the essence of the notion of hybridity. There are special procedures in the House to deal with those matters, which can be adjudicated only through proceedings provided in Standing Orders.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman has again made his point, and I cannot enlarge upon it.

Mr. William Ross: I have been trying to intervene on my hon. Friend for some time, but such was the interest in his remarks that other hon. Members wanted to have them clarified.
My hon. Friend's knowledge on these matters is greater than mine, and I, too, seek clarification. He has drawn attention to the potential inequity and discrimination suffered by hon. Members, and he related that to the fact that people in Northern Ireland were treated as children of the Irish nation. However, as he will know, it was not only people in Northern Ireland who were so defined by the Irish constitution; so were all those whom Ireland considers to be Irish citizens, including many persons who might enjoy dual citizenship with the United Kingdom. In such circumstances, my hon. Friend would surely be wrong to confine membership of that group to those who

live in Northern Ireland. The group embodies a much larger number of people, who live not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere in the world.

Mr. Maginnis: My hon. Friend makes a point that was developed Mary Robinson during her presidency, when she talked about the Irish diaspora. But I do not think that that point impacts on the specific point that I was making concerning the reciprocal rights of Members of this House.

Mr. Robathan: The point about how the law affects people in the United Kingdom is extremely important. If there is no reciprocity between Dail Members and Members of this place, and if—as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has just suggested—members of the Irish diaspora who are Members of the House of Commons are allowed to sit in the Dail, it seems that there will be immediate discrimination between an English-born Member like me and southern Irish-born Members, of whom there are many in the House—

Mr. Ross: And their descendants.

Mr. Robathan: Yes. Although I am not a lawyer, I suspect that, without the reciprocity clause, the consequent discrimination would constitute a prima facie offence against the European convention on human rights—and, almost certainly, against English law.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. I hope that that is the point I have succeeded in making to Ministers, because it is the nub of my argument.
I move on in trepidation. Once again on reciprocity, I press the Minister to tell us whom he consulted. He could clarify the point by telling us whether he talked to each individual major party in the Irish Republic. He could achieve reciprocity by agreement with those parties. The strange thing is that the members of the Dail's all-party constitutional committee were neither in favour of nor against reciprocity. They were totally ignorant of the matter, which had not been put to them for consideration. They were worried about conflict of interest, as has been noted. Who had the authority, on behalf of the Irish Government, to offer reciprocity?
I am not as clear as the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that the Minister did in fact suggest that such an offer was made. I hope that the Minister will enable me to move forward by saying whether an offer on that issue—vague or otherwise—had been made by the major parties in the Irish Republic. I hope that he will accept that challenge, but I see that he is keeping his head down. I recognise the Minister's reluctance to inform the House on the question of reciprocity and the basis on which certain assumptions are being made.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Perhaps I can deal with those questions if I catch your eye later in the debate, Sir Alan.

Mr. Maginnis: I was briefly lifted up, Sir Alan, only to be dropped again by the Minister's reluctance. However, if his promise is realised later, it is possible that some progress might be made.
I remind the Minister that the Irish constitution contains an obligation to cherish the children of the nation. I like to be cherished. I should like to believe that any cherishing done was real and had some depth. However, when Austin Currie—to whom the Minister alluded earlier—tried to make a point in Dail Eireann, using his usual blunt Northern Ireland manner, a southern Irish Member of the Dail told him to go back to the north where he came from. All the children of the nation were not being cherished quite equally on that occasion.
The Bill diminishes the long and honourable tradition of this House whereby hon. Members have always had a clear idea of their obligations and loyalties. However, I wonder whether the Bill means that all Irish can be British, even when they do not want to be, but that no British can be Irish, however much they might wish to be. The reality is that most of us have enough to do representing the interests of one nation.
The Bill asks us to divide our loyalties. Reciprocity would require both nations to try that impossible exercise.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I shall seek to heed your direction that the issue is narrow, Sir Alan, and speak only to the amendment. It would prevent the Bill's coming into force unless and until membership of either House of the Irish Parliament was fully open to Members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) sought reciprocity. We ban Members of the Irish Parliament from being Members of this House. There is no provision in Irish law similar to section 1(1)(e) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords—and, indeed, Members of the legislatures of other countries—are not disqualified on that account from membership of the Irish Parliament. To that extent, the reciprocity sought by the amendment already exists. Members of the Irish Parliament are, however, required to be Irish nationals. Of course, most Members of the United Kingdom Parliament do not satisfy that condition and are therefore not eligible for membership or election to the Dail. Others may be qualified, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said in his intervention, by reason of their birth or other status. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, under particular laws in the Irish Republic, certain people who were born on the island of Ireland can stand.
Dual nationality is open to certain persons who have British national rights, holding Irish nationality at the same time, and who hold both passports. I understand that many people in England and Wales hold British and Irish passports.
The Bill—the clause depends on this point—raises no new principle in the sense that Commonwealth legislators can be Members of this House. We do not impose reciprocity of legal frameworks on Commonwealth legislators. I have heard no justification as yet for imposing a condition that we do not believe is desirable

in respect of Commonwealth countries on Members of the Irish Parliament.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I should like to finish my point first. Some hon. Members have said that they do not believe that even Commonwealth legislators should be able to be Members in this House. Hon. Members may wish, at some stage, in another context, to consider all these issues, but this very short Bill, which deals with a specific matter, is not the place to do it.

Mr. Maginnis: The Minister has made the mistake of not comparing like with like. Whatever the reciprocity, or lack of it, is for Commonwealth countries, it is common to all Members of this House. That is not the case with the Irish Dail.

Mr. O'Brien: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The reciprocity to which he refers is the issue of whether, under the nationality laws, membership of a particular Parliament is open to persons who are not of that nationality. I do not know the terms and restrictions imposed by all the Commonwealth countries, but I suspect that some have a condition under which the only people who can stand for their Parliament are nationals of that country. In that case, I am comparing like with like. Given the sort of reciprocity with the Commonwealth that we are discussing, I have heard no real justification for treating the Irish Republic differently.
2.30 am
During the debate, the hon. Gentleman and others asked who might want to take up the right to be a Member of two Parliaments. Comment has been made—although it is not on all fours with that matter—about the circumstances of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who was, at one time, a Member of the Irish Senate. The hon. Gentleman is a well-respected Member of this House, and he did not lose that respect as a consequence of his membership of the Irish Senate. Sometimes hon. Members refer to that matter in a rather joky fashion; they should be careful about doing so, because they are talking about an hon. Gentleman whom we all respect—whether or not we always agree with him.

Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I want to deal with some of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I shall also deal with the point that he made.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry asked several questions. Do the Irish need a referendum to allow British Members of Parliament to join the Dail? Of course, they do not because they do not ban our MPs from joining the Dail. They do not need to change their law. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was at least able to be a Member of the Senate.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry referred to the conflict of interests that would arise if someone was a member of two legislatures in different countries. We know that individuals have held such membership, although not necessarily simultaneously.

Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall not give way at the moment, as I want to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry before giving way to several other hon. Members.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of conflict of interests. If a person were elected to two constituencies, the issue of representing them both would certainly arise—as the hon. Member for Blaby suggested in an intervention. However, that would be a matter for the constituents in the two countries. They might well have a view, but it would be a matter for them.
At present, our constitutional arrangements allow the potential for that choice in voting to be made by citizens of Commonwealth countries and by UK electors. It would be difficult to argue that we should have different rules on the matter for the Irish Republic, although there might be questions about someone who was appointed to the Senate, but elected to a British constituency.
It would be arguable whether that was desirable, but the conflict between the two roles would be somewhat less because there would be constituents in only one country, although there might be questions as to where a person's loyalty lies. That point returns us to some of the issues raised on Second Reading, which I shall not rehearse, about people representing other countries—perhaps in the European Parliament and the British Parliament. There are precedents for those matters.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry asked what view the UK electorate would take on this matter. I can only reply that it is a matter for them. The voters would have to make their judgment in the circumstances that applied on each occasion.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for East Londonderry.

Mr. Ross: The Minister is well aware that, if someone were elected to two constituencies in this country, he would immediately be asked which of them he planned to represent. He would be excluded from one House in respect of the other. Why does that proviso not also apply across the borders of our nation?

Mr. O'Brien: The issue of where a Member of Parliament's loyalty lies is one for that Member's constituents. They will have to deal with that. We know that some individuals have been Members of the Irish

Senate and are now Members of the House. They do a good job—at least, the one individual that I am aware of does a good job here.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I have promised to give way to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). I just want to deal with another issue and then I shall give way to him.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) raised in an intervention the issue of whether the wording of the amendment was unclear, especially in respect of the word "qualified". However, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) suggested that such an issue was all a matter of fact. There is room for doubt, and there is an issue about whether the wording of the amendment is clear enough for us ever to accept.

Mr. Clappison: The Minister told the Committee that there would not have to be a change in Irish law to enable Members of the House to take a place in the Irish Parliament, because Members of the House are not disqualified from the Irish Parliament by virtue of being Members of the House. But they are, are they not, disqualified from being Members of the Irish Parliament if they are not Irish citizens. Therefore the Minister must accept that there would have to be a change in the law in that regard.

Mr. O'Brien: Had the hon. Gentleman listened with care to what I said, he would have been aware that I have made the point that he just made, so there is no great dispute between us about that. Obviously, it would be a matter for the Irish Government. The way that I dealt with that was to say that we do not impose on Commonwealth countries to whom we apply these rules the obligation to change their laws to enable Members of the House to stand in their Parliaments. I suspect that some of those Commonwealth countries would have rules about the nationality of persons who could stand in elections to their Parliaments.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) asked whether the Bill contravened European legislation. Our advice is that there is no breach of the European convention on human rights, or any other European legislation that we are aware of.

Mr. Robathan: This is a very important point. I fear that, by trying to pass the Bill without an amendment for reciprocity, the Minister and his colleagues may have opened a can of worms. I am not as sanguine as the Home Secretary about this. Article 14 of the European convention on human rights is about the prohibition of discrimination. A very small part of it says that the enjoyment of
rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination
inter alia
on grounds of national origin".


That lovely can of worms is now being opened up by the Bill, whereby people with dual citizenship or Irish citizens in this Parliament will be able to sit in the Dail, whereas, without reciprocity, English citizens such as myself will not. That seems to be contrary to article 14.

Mr. O'Brien: The Home Secretary is a lawyer, as I am. We have received legal advice that there is no contravention of the ECHR, and that article 14 must be read in the context of the other articles with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I do not propose to give way again. I have been quite generous.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone asked me two more questions. I am being cautious and watching your eye, Sir Alan. He asked me about the issue of reciprocity in terms of the law. The Scotland Act 1998 provides that Ministers in the United Kingdom Government cannot be Ministers in the Scottish Executive. That provision extends no further, so there is no ban on the election of an individual to both bodies. Moreover, there is no reference in relation to the Welsh Assembly Executive and the UK Executive in the Government of Wales Act 1998.
I dealt with the question of whom we discussed the matter with on Second Reading, but let me make it clear that representations have been received from, and discussions held with, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the Irish Government. I understand that representations have been received by the Government from Sinn Fein. However, let me make it clear that the Government are not trading on issues. As always, representations are judged on their merits, and I believe that the measures in the Bill are justified on their own merits. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone will be aware also of the issue in relation to clause 2 and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

Mr. Maginnis: Although the Minister of State Northern Ireland Office has clarified this point, will the Under-Secretary also clarify that what he calls consultation with the leader of the Ulster Unionist party was not, in fact, consultation before the event, but rather was informing my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) after the Bill had been decided upon? Would the Under-Secretary clarify that my right hon. Friend indicated his antipathy towards the Bill, and that he mentioned the flaw in terms of conflict of interest—

The Chairman: Order. I do not see how that relates to the amendment.

Mr. O'Brien: I was not party to the discussions, but the Committee will have heard what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said.

Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Can the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and say that there was consultation with the leader of the Ulster Unionist—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House, and he knows that the Chair has absolutely no control over what Ministers, or anyone else, say in the House. That is not a point of order.

Mr. O'Brien: With your indulgence, Sir Alan, I would be happy to answer that question when I am in order. Hopefully, in due course, I shall be provided with the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: No, I will not.
The Conservatives have argued that there is an issue of principle here. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 contains a provision for a Member of the Irish Senate to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I understand that the Conservatives did not vote against this matter—indeed, it did not seem to be worth significant comment by them.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did not vote against the measure, and did not seem concerned enough to comment. We are merely building on a principle that was established without demur by the Conservatives, and ending the anomaly whereby the measure applied only to Northern Ireland. We are ensuring that Northern Ireland is treated in the same way as the UK as a whole. All of a sudden, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is suggesting that there is a matter of principle where, previously, there was none.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I have made no contribution to this debate so far, but I wish to put our position on the record.
We think that the Government are right to argue their case, and we would encourage the amendment's supporters not to proceed with it. Whatever we think about the background to the debate, our view is that we cannot have proposals considered by this House on the basis of linkage with other activities involving other sovereign Governments over whom we have no control. It might be a wonderful idea if the Irish Parliament decided to extend rights not just to citizens of Ireland in Northern Ireland, but to the whole of the UK. However, we have no knowledge that it is about to do that. It is not a matter that we can control. Therefore, to make the Bill conditional on what might happen to our rights to sit in the Dail is unreasonable.
2.45 am
I wish to make a technical and drafting point. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that, surprisingly, two interpretations can be placed on the amendment. As the Minister said, the first is satisfied by the position of Members of the Lords. Some Members of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons are qualified for membership of either House of the legislature in the Republic of Ireland. It is fair to say that only those Members from Northern Ireland who are eligible for Irish citizenship qualify under that


interpretation. If that is what the amendment suggests, it is redundant. If the amendment is intended to apply to all Members, that is a separate matter, but that is not what it says.
We shall come to later groups of amendments that it is perfectly appropriate to debate. They deal with who should not qualify to become Members of the two legislatures, because, for example, they hold ministerial office. That is a perfectly proper matter for us to debate and Liberal Democrats will vote in favour of some of those amendments if they are moved and put to a vote. However, that is different from the issue under consideration in this debate.
We have tried to give balanced consideration to all the issues. We have not changed our view about the concern that we have not been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about why we are debating the Bill—let alone why we have to debate it at a quarter to 3 in the morning as a matter of urgent House of Commons business when it came on the agenda only late in December.
The Bill seeks to deal with a mischief and to put Ireland in a similar or better position than Commonwealth countries. Given that Ireland was once part of this country and is, therefore, closer to us than any Commonwealth country, that is fair and reasonable. If it is possible to be a Member of a Commonwealth legislature and of this legislature, it is reasonable and fair—whether one thinks it sensible or not—to provide the same right to our friends from Ireland. Our links with them are as strong, if not stronger, so there is a logic to that view.
As I said on Second Reading, we should have a debate about whether it is logical to have dual eligibility for two legislatures. It would have been better to have that constitutional debate first, even though we touched on it on Second Reading. However, that is not the approach that the Government have chosen.
On the specific issue, the logic of the argument is with the Minister and not with those who support the amendment. That is not because we do not think it right to seek to amend the Bill in the right places. We shall support later groups of amendments that have been tabled by Conservative and Ulster Unionist Members, but we shall not support this one. If it is put to the vote, we shall vote against it.

Mr. Forth: It is disappointing that the Minister has tried to deal with the matter in such a superficial way. I come immediately to his spurious point about me. I am able to distinguish between a national Parliament of a sovereign nation, such as this is, despite the depredations and subversions of European institutions, and the role played by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Minister suggested that I was somehow in dereliction of my duty or inconsistent in opposing Members from an alien country coming to one body but not to the other. However, I see the two issues as completely different.
I freely concede that the Minister has listened to most of the debate, but it is worrying that he does not understand the distinction between the roles of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Houses of Parliament. That is a sad reflection on the Government's fundamental failure to understand the dangerous game that they are playing.
The point of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was a red herring. I happen not to agree with Members of Commonwealth Parliaments being eligible for election to this House. If there is an anomaly in the treatment of Commonwealth countries and Ireland, I would sort it out by going the other way and abolishing that now redundant provision.
The hon. Gentleman says that Ireland and Commonwealth countries are in the same category, but they are not. The Irish chose to leave the Commonwealth. They made their statement and I respect that, but they must not expect the privileges of Commonwealth membership when they have opted not to be a member of the Commonwealth. That is a false argument.
We have had an interesting and useful debate, from which a matter that is relevant to the amendment has emerged. The Minister has now said what he previously said but half denied: that there were discussions with the Irish Government and, he now adds, with Sinn Fein. That is the first time during the debates in Committee that the Minister has said, in terms and on the record, that the measure arose largely from discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland and Sinn Fein. We are now, for the first time, beginning to get a sense of the origin of the measure and the thrust behind it.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will recall the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in respect of alleged consultations with the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. He was apparently not so much consulted as told what the Government intended to do, and he objected to what they intended to do. It has slowly been dragged out of Ministers that the only people who were consulted are the Government of the Republic of Ireland and Sinn Fein.

The Chairman: Order. I have already explained that that point is outside the scope of the amendment, so I do not want it to be pursued.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Sir Alan. I shall not explore at this stage nuances in the definitions of discussion and consultation, or who pushed whom. However, I give the Minister fair notice that we shall return to the matter. In the meantime, the debate has proved extremely useful in that we have dragged out of the Government something that they had hitherto failed to state.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has dragged something out of the Government. I refer his attention to column 26 of the Hansard of 24 January.

Mr. Forth: You, Sir Alan, would not want me to become distracted by embarking on reading a column of Hansard at this stage. I do not know what it says, or the significance of the Minister's intervention. However, if he is implying that we have already been told that discussions took place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the one hand and Sinn Fein on the other, I can say only that I am glad that he has now told us it twice.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is generous to a fault, but on this occasion he is crediting the Minister with


a clarity that was not present in his remarks yesterday. For the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. Friend accept that the reference the Minister has cited mentions discussions with
the Irish Government and others"—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 34 3, c. 26.]?
Is that opaque, or what?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to linger on the point, but, having sat through almost every minute of debate that has so far taken place on this measure, I was fairly certain that Sinn Fein had not hitherto been mentioned in terms. Now, for the first time, we have it on the record. That is a step forward. We are now beginning to get to the bottom of the matter. We shall have to return to the matter on Third Reading and in another place.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The issue of what was said to Sinn Fein is extremely important, because no one can understand why anyone would want to sit as a Member of two Parliaments. However, we know that members of Sinn Fein want expenses for sitting as Members of the UK Parliament—

The Chairman: Order. That was not a helpful intervention and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue it.

Mr. Forth: I shall press on, Sir Alan.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Before my right hon. Friend does so, will he press the Minister to respond to a point made earlier? In the discussions that took place, was the question addressed by the amendment, namely reciprocity, raised with the Irish Government? In the discussions about the Bill generally, did the Minister and other Ministers discuss with the representatives of the Irish Government whether it would be a one-way Bill or whether an amendment of the sort that is before us could be incorporated in it?

Mr. Forth: I would hope that that is the sort of matter that we might be able to explore further by means of manuscript amendments, for example, which we discussed early in our proceedings. Perhaps that is worth bearing in mind. However, I detect—I am something of a student of body language and facial expressions, and particularly those of the occupants of the Chair during these proceedings—that if I were to follow my hon. Friend's intervention, which I know was intended to be helpful, I might incur Sir Alan's displeasure, which I do not want to do.
I want to move on to cover some of the main points that have been made in this useful debate. I confess to a feeling of disappointment and hurt that so many of my hon. Friends attacked my amendment with such vigour. I thought that I would get support from them, and all I have had during most of this part of our little debate are attacks and misunderstandings. It is incumbent upon me to try to clarify some of the points that my hon. Friends have made.
My hon. Friends seemed to be occupied inordinately and disproportionately—they struggled over this—with my use of "qualified". The amendment was drafted, as

ever, with the help and expertise of the Clerks. I suspect that it is beyond suspicion and beyond doubt. To try to put it further beyond doubt, I had it in mind only to make the simple point that it is up to each legislature to lay down qualifications for membership of itself. I am seeking to say that such qualifications should be reciprocal. That is putting the matter in layman's language and returning to the word that I used when introducing the amendment only two or three hours ago. It is inappropriate for my hon. Friends to make heavy weather of the meaning of "qualified" in this context. I would have said "unfair", but I would not use that word when describing the approach of my hon. Friends in any circumstances. The amendment is straightforward and my hon. Friends need not look for difficulties. What they see is essentially what they will get.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) asked me a peculiar question. He wanted to know whether I had been in negotiations with the Irish Republic about my amendment. The answer is no. I am not in the habit of negotiating with the Irish Republic. I used to do so when I was a member of the Council of Ministers. I was involved then in negotiations with the Republic, and I still have the bruises and the scars. I did not find much co-operation, friendliness and helpfulness from Irish Ministers. Quite the opposite. I shall not dwell on that because it is a painful memory. However, I can say categorically that I did not negotiate the terms of my amendment with any representatives of the Irish Republic. I bear sole responsibility for it and for its many weaknesses, which my hon. Friends have been at such pains to point out.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised an important matter. He said that he believed that for reciprocity to be achieved in its fullest sense, it may be not entirely a matter for the Irish Government themselves or for the Irish legislature, given the constitutional arrangements in the Republic. He raised the fair point of the need for referendum approval of amendments to that constitution.
That raises the prospect that we are not here, as in so many other areas, on the same footing on the two sides of the Irish sea. We have different electoral systems, and we have the requirement in the Republic of Ireland of a referendum on any change, which would not apply in the United Kingdom. So there is a question mark over whether full reciprocity in the purest sense of the word could ever be achieved.
3 am
I ask the Committee to put those considerations aside and treat the matter in a more straightforward manner. The Irish Government could deliver reciprocity if they wished. They have shown that in recent referendums on similar matters. We know that the United Kingdom Government can deliver because of their huge majority in the House and their part-reform of another place. We need not dwell excessively on nuances and differences; although they may seem important, they do not undermine the essential thrust of the amendment.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) asked a question that the Minister failed to answer. He asked whether the Government had requested any quid pro quo from those with whom they had held discussions, namely, the Irish Government and, as we now know, Sinn


Fein. I suspect that the answer is no. The Government have offered an enormous concession, which is a breach of our nationhood, sovereignty and legislative arrangements, in return for nothing. I have been unable to detect any quid pro quo. From the Minister's complacent demeanour, I suspect that I am right. He is trying not to look ashamed, but he should be ashamed.

Mr. William Ross: Despite the existence of many parties in Ireland, both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, the only party—apart from the Irish Government—that the Government have consulted appears to be Sinn Fein. Why have the Government consulted them alone?

Mr. Forth: We all know the answer to that question. The Government have persuaded themselves that the only way to make the peace arrangements work is to grant concession after concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. That pattern is consistent; there is nothing new or surprising about it—it goes on and on. We are forced to take the view that the measure is yet another example of that process, which includes the release of prisoners, and the ability of terrorist sympathisers to participate in our constitutional arrangements. The Bill is another step in that direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) made pertinent points about the potential role of European law, the European Court of Justice, the European convention on human rights and, consequently, the European Court of Human Rights in the matter that we are considering. He persuaded me of the possibility, if not the likelihood, of running foul of one of those bodies of law or one of the institutions that are charged with interpreting that law.
It has been pointed out that the Home Secretary—surprise, surprise—has given an assurance that the Bill is fully in line with the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary is unlikely to say, "I've got a neat little Bill that I've negotiated with Sinn Fein and I want to slip it through quietly because it may not comply with the European convention on human rights." It is much more likely that, in his anxiety to please Sinn Fein, he has decided to slip the Bill through quickly, complete with nods and winks, and hope that it will not fall foul of the convention on human rights.
Some of my hon. Friends, whose knowledge is far superior to mine—that is not difficult—suspect that we could be in severe trouble with the convention and the European Court of Human Rights, and European law and the European Court of Justice. It would be worse to fall foul of the latter, because its decisions are more binding. It would be supremely ironic if the Government, with their slavish adherence to all matters European, suddenly found that a measure designed to please Sinn Fein-IRA ran foul of their friends in the European institutions. We can only speculate at this stage, but there is sufficient evidence and a feeling in the Committee that such may be the case. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for bringing that matter to the attention of the Committee.
My hon. Friend also questioned whether the fact that the UK is a considerable net contributor to the European Union, whereas the Republic of Ireland is a considerable

net beneficiary, would impinge on the evenhandedness or reciprocity that my amendment seeks. Having listened to my hon. Friend, I am not yet able to make that connection, but it may arise in a form that I have not foreseen. I ask my hon. Friends not to be excessively anxious at this stage about that detail but to support my amendment, because it says something important about evenhandedness and reciprocity.
I accept that the amendment may have drafting faults. I am not persuaded, but many people seem to see such difficulties. The role of an amendment debate in Committee is to identify ways of improving a Bill and impress them on the Government, in the hope that Ministers here or in the other place will be prepared to re-examine the Bill in light of debate and the vote that may now be imminent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) asked whether the Irish Government are considering making reciprocal arrangements. We have not spent much time on that interesting matter and may want to return to it. The excellent Library brief makes tantalising allusions to some sort of consideration being given in Dublin: "Don't worry too much that something may happen", and so on. I doubt whether that can be interpreted as the Irish Government considering making anything that could be remotely described as reciprocal arrangements. The Library brief was much more vague and much less encouraging, so I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, "Don't hold your breath. Don't expect that if we agree to this, we will get a corresponding concession." It must surely be the opposite. If the Irish Government and Sinn Fein-IRA think that they can get this concession for nothing, there is no incentive for them to do anything. This whole thing is the wrong way around. It should be them saying to us, "We're prepared to make this change. What are you prepared to do in return?"

Mr. Swayne: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not sit down without dealing with the substantive point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and me in various interventions. If my right hon. Friend's amendment is successful and achieves the reciprocity that he desires, he multiplies at a stroke the opportunities for implementing the Bill's offensive principle—to serve two sovereign Parliaments at one time.

Mr. Forth: I was hoping that my hon. Friend would not notice that I had failed to deal with that point. Sharp as ever, even at this hour, he has pulled me up and is right to do so. Anyone in my position has to make a difficult judgment. It is a matter of record that I voted against Second Reading and, generally speaking, I remain of that view. I am now in the business of seeking to improve the Bill. That is the whole point of Committee stage and my amendment. The House has expressed its view—which I reluctantly accept—and our role is to find ways of improving the Bill.
At first blush, my amendment may seem at odds with my voting against Second Reading on principle. Some right hon. and hon. Friends do not want to concern themselves with amendments in Committee. They are


anxious, as I am, to get on to Third Reading and vote against the Bill in principle again. And if my amendment is brushed aside by the Government, in cavalier fashion—

Mr. Swayne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I shall finish my point. I may be forced to reconsider, but right now I am in a very positive mood. I am looking to improve the Bill and trying to make it work better, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that. I give way to him once more.

Mr. Swayne: I understand and entirely accept what my right hon. Friend says, but he must accept that the amendment should be greeted with equanimity, if not alacrity, by Labour rather than Conservative Members.

Mr. Forth: That may be, but I have to gather support where I can. When I embarked on this venture, I thought that I might receive more support from my hon. Friends, although some have kindly said that they are still prepared to support my amendment, in spite of everything. We shall put that to the test shortly.

Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: Yes, but then I really must conclude.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a reference by the Minister to the likelihood of early Irish reciprocity would have been necessary, though not sufficient, to reassure Conservative Members? Despite trawling through the genuinely riveting 32-minute oration that he delivered yesterday, I cannot find such a reference, though I feel sure that if there was such he would speedily point to it.

Mr. Forth: I am sure that the Minister would bound to his feet, wave Hansard in the air with an air of triumph, mutter a column number and sit down thinking that he had done the job. Along with my hon. Friend, I suspect that that will not happen, although encouragingly he is leafing through a document even now. I shall stay on my feet just long enough to get a feeling of whether he will oblige.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: Yes, but this must be the last time, as I am very anxious to press on.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because the Minister did not deal with this point. In most Parliaments, those who stand have also to be voters. Citizens of the Irish Republic automatically receive the right to vote in this country, which is beyond what European Union citizens receive. Is there the same reciprocity in their voting system, which would allow us to stand for the Parliament of the Republic?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has anticipated the last point that I want to make. We are in the odd position of having multi-layered provision. I am not unhappy about that; I merely point it out. Our friends, colleagues and fellow citizens in Northern Ireland are uniquely privileged

because they have rights in the Republic of Ireland that we mainlanders do not have. I am sure that that is a matter of great joy and satisfaction to a lot of them.

Mr. William Ross: If we have rights in the Irish Republic, we cannot recall ever asking for them. We do not see any need of them and would be quite content if they disappeared.

Mr. Forth: That may be, but I am simply stating the facts. We are faced with a bewildering complexity of rights, lack of rights and no reciprocity, but a small and important group has rights over and above even that. The Government should have picked their way very carefully indeed through that bewildering array by consulting fully, thinking of all the implications and considering the timing, but they have done none of that. They have not thought things through and have not told us why they are introducing the Bill. My amendment surely would go some small way to putting right aspects of it that are wrong. It would offer reassurance where there is none and straighten out a serious anomaly. I hope, for those reasons, that I shall enjoy widespread support in the Lobby.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 243.

Division No. 42]
[3.14 am


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Chope, Christopher
Thompson, William



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric



Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Desmond Swayne and


Maginnis, Ken
Mr. Michael Fabricant.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Chaytor, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atkins, Charlotte



Austin, John
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Battle, John,
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coaker, Vernon


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Coleman, Iain


Bennett, Andrew F
Colman, Tony


Benton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Berry, Roger,
Corbyn, Jeremy


Best, Harold
Corston, Jean


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cousins, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Cranston, Ross


Borrow, David
Crausby, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cummings, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Browne, Desmond
Dalyell, Tarn


Burgon, Colin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davidson, Ian


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dawson, Hilton


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Caplin, Ivor
Denham, John


Cawsey, Ian
Dobbin, Jim


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Doran, Frank






Efford, Clive
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McIsaac, Shona


Ennis, Jeff
Mackinlay, Andrew


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McNulty, Tony


Fisher, Mark
Mactaggart, Fiona


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McWalter, Tony


Flint, Caroline
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Ftt Hon Derek
Mallaber, Judy


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foulkes, George
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Galloway, George
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Merron, Gillian


Gardiner, Barry
Miller, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mitchell, Austin


Gerrard, Neil
Moffatt, Laura


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Goggins, Paul
Moran, Ms Margaret


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morley, Elliot


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mountford, Kali


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mudie, George


Grogan, John
Mullin, Chris


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Oaten, Mark


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Healey, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hepburn, Stephen
Palmer, Dr Nick


Heppell, John
Pearson, Ian


Hesford, Stephen
Perham, Ms Linda


Hill, Keith
Pickthall, Colin


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L


Hope, Phil
Plaskitt, James


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pollard, Kerry


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pound, Stephen


Howells, Dr Kim
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Prosser, Gwyn


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Quinn, Lawrie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Illsley, Eric
Rammell, Bill


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Jamieson, David
Rooney, Terry


Jenkins, Brian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Savidge, Malcolm


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Sawford, Phil


Keeble, Ms Sally
Shaw, Jonathan


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Sheerman, Barry


Kemp, Fraser
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Singh, Marsha


Kidney, David
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Laxton, Bob
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lepper, David
Soley, Clive


Leslie, Christopher
Southworth, Ms Helen


Levitt, Tom
Squire, Ms Rachel


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Linton, Martin
Stevenson, George


Lock, David
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Love, Andrew
Stinchcombe, Paul


McAvoy, Thomas
Stringer, Graham


McCabe, Steve
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Macdonald, Calum
Stunell, Andrew


McDonnell, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McFall, John
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)





Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Watts, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Tipping, Paddy
Wills, Michael


Todd, Mark
Wilson, Brian


Touhig, Don
Winnick, David


Trickett, Jon
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Truswell, Paul
Wise, Audrey



Wood, Mike


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Woodward, Shaun


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Woolas Phil


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Worthincrton Tony


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wray, James


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tynan, Bill



Walley, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Ward, Ms Claire
Mr. Clive Betts and


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Only because the matter comes up in every debate, through you, I ask whether Ministers are willing to table for the Committee, or to put in the Library of the House, copies of all the representations that they have received so far on the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is not a matter for the Chair, but I have no doubt that Ministers will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 6, page 1, line 9, at end add—
'(3) At the end insert "is a Minister in the government of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom; or"'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in title, line 4, after 'Oireachtas', insert—
'to extend that disqualification to Ministers in the government of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom'.

Mr. Ross: This is a fairly simple and straightforward little amendment. As I am sure you will have noticed, Mr. Martin, today's selection list—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Committee must come to order. There is far too much noise and conversation.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Martin, you will have noticed that the selection list contained a curious little addendum. I cannot recall ever having seen such an addendum before. I should be grateful for your guidance on how often they have had to be included.
It caused me some concern. I tried to find out what words had not appeared in the printing of amendment No. 6. I discovered that it was purely a technical mistake in that the words "At the end insert" had been left out in the printed list of amendments. If something like that happens, it should be made clearer to hon. Members what the mistake is. It was not immediately clear. We had to read it several times before it became apparent that it was only a clerical or technical error.
This is a modest and simple little amendment. It would exclude from the Executive of Northern Ireland any person outside the United Kingdom who is a Government Minister elsewhere in the world. Amendment No. 8 is consequential on it, in that it inserts the same disqualification into the long title of the Bill. It is not often that we try to amend the long titles of Bills, but this is one such case. The two amendments hang together.
It seems to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), to me and to the Opposition that the amendment is modest and reasonable. In fact, it is so reasonable that only the most malign could reject the principle embodied within it. Many of the elements of the Bill have been addressed in earlier debates, but I make no excuse for raising them again. Time and again, we have to examine those matters carefully, so that we can reach sensible conclusions about them.
3.30 am
In any country, Ministers are very busy people who are weighed down with responsibility and the cares of office. They have to deal with demands from their constituents, from fellow members of the legislature, from the Government and from pressure groups. It would be quite wrong to burden them with any more work. Indeed, it would be quite unfair to leave in their way the temptation of further office—or, in some countries, the spoils of further office. We should guard them against such temptation.
The danger is that some of those people might be moved to take on the burden, but find themselves so weighed down with responsibility that they will do neither job well. They may well have a multiplicity of jobs. It would be quite wrong to burden any man or woman with such a multiplicity, as it could lead to his or her disillusionment, and to his or her constituents' anger and frustration that their representative was not available or able to do the necessary work. In the long run, therefore, it is not a good idea for people to have so many responsibilities. No one should not be placed in such a situation.
There are also issues of conflict of interest and clash of demands. They were partly explored in earlier debates and place the most immense burdens on the individuals concerned. There is conflict between different states about job creation measures and social legislation—such as welfare to work, child benefit, divorce, abortion and tax, not to mention international trade and defence issues involving the states concerned. All those considerations are bound to lead to the most intolerable pressures on individuals and generate enormous friction.
Such individuals will have personal financial considerations. In the United Kingdom, there has been a dependence on the Crown for patronage, and on the Crown and Parliament for salaries and allowances. There has been dependence on the Prime Minister for his patronage, which enables one to advance within the Government of the United Kingdom.
I foresee problems even in the position, in the House and in the government of London, of Ministers of the various devolved bodies of the United Kingdom. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said in the previous debate, presumably because of a potential clash of interests, Ministers in the Scottish Executive cannot hold office in the United Kingdom Government. If

a possible clash is recognised at that level, should we not recognise the far greater potential of pressures being generated in the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country?
I should think that the Scottish Executive have good reason for wanting a representative who speaks for them, rather than through the Secretary of State for Scotland within the House and the United Kingdom Executive. In those circumstances, I should have thought that it would be only reasonable for us to examine Scotland's relationship to the House, rather than the relationship that exists between us, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Dail.
Welsh Members can be members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, thereby having an impact on the powers of the two bodies concerned.
I am not too clear about whether there can be dual membership of the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, and the Northern Ireland Assembly. That must be clarified. Such problems will only get worse when countries outside the United Kingdom are taken into account.
The Minister gave the impression yesterday that he would try to clear up such problems. He tried to persuade us that he had given a clear indication of all the people with whom he had discussed such matters. In fact, he had not been entirely candid. Today, it was wrung out of him that he had also talked to Sinn Fein. Yesterday, he told my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) that the Bill would cover this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. A little later, I asked him to confirm why the Bill did not bar Members of Parliament from becoming Ministers in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. He said that the matter would be discussed in Committee.
We are in Committee now. The Minister also said:
Following representations of which the hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware,"—
I was not—
it was argued that, because it might give rise to concern in Northern Ireland, that issue should be specifically addressed in legislation. It has been addressed in clause 2."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 34.]
I do not think that it has.
The Minister went on to say that he hoped that I would be satisfied that the Government were listening to representations from all parties. I suggest that they are doing so some months too late. The necessary representations and discussions in connection with the Bill should have taken place long before it was published.
Why should we allow foreigners to rule over us? That is the bottom line. Why should we even leave that door open? It will be exploited sooner or later. This country's experience of getting into bed with foreigners in the past has cost us more dearly than it has cost them.
We should not go down that road. We should stick to representing our constituents in the United Kingdom. Anyone who wants to represent people in another country


should live in that country. People who live in this nation should give their loyalty to this nation. That is why we have tabled the amendment.

Mr. George Howarth: Yesterday, on Second Reading, I said that the Government were aware that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had tabled some amendments. Although I had not seen their exact terms, and could make no commitment as to the outcome of our consideration, I made it clear that we would, naturally, study them very carefully and reflect on them overnight. I want to emphasise the importance that the Government attach to his views. His distinguished and courageous role in seeking peace has been rightly praised in our earlier debates, but he is also the First Minister of the new, devolved Executive.
I know that I speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when I tell the Committee that one of his concerns since taking up his current responsibilities has been to ensure that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his party have felt that the Government have taken the fullest possible account of their interests. I hope that he and his colleagues recognise the serious efforts that have been made by my right hon. Friend in that respect. It is no secret that the final decisions of various discussions have not always been what they wanted. Given the divisions that still exist in Northern Ireland, no one would expect that. However, I hope that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and his colleagues will recognise the honest and determined efforts that my right hon. Friend has made in this respect.
Although the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may have wished that consultations on the Bill had started earlier, they took place before the Bill was introduced. The form of the Bill was amended to take account of some, though not all, of the concerns expressed in those representations. In particular, clause 2 was incorporated in direct response to concerns raised by him. I say all this simply to demonstrate the effort that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made to take into account the views of the right hon. Gentleman, alongside the proper concerns of other parties.
I know that this is not precisely the subject of the debate, Mr. Martin, but it may be helpful to say that the Government are minded to accept the principle of amendment No. 7 in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. We accept, uniquely, that statutory committees in the Assembly have more than a scrutiny role. Under the Good Friday agreement, they have a role in policy development, so there is a good case for treating their chairs and deputy chairs as akin to Ministers.
I will not dwell further on those arguments because they are properly the subject of another debate. However, this demonstrates that we listened very carefully to the concerns expressed on Second Reading. We took full account of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment and reflected on the issue overnight, as I said that we would. However, having reflected on amendment No. 6 very carefully, we cannot advise the Committee to accept it. Under the amendment, any Minister of a country outside the United Kingdom would be disqualified from being a Back-Bench Member of this House or of devolved legislatures. The Bill, as it was introduced, was concerned

purely with the small extension of existing provisions from Commonwealth countries to include Ireland. The amendment would take away the existing right under law—however theoretical that right may be—of Ministers in any Commonwealth country to be Members of this House and the devolved legislatures.
On Second Reading, some Opposition Members thought that all such Commonwealth rights should be swept away. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was one of them. That is certainly not a position that the Government advocate. We warmly support the Commonwealth and the special links that exist with all the countries in it. If we wanted to change the nature of those links—and we have no such plans—we would want to do so in consultation with the countries and Governments concerned. We have had no opportunity to do so, and it was not the purpose of the Bill to affect existing rights that apply to Commonwealth countries. On those grounds alone, I am bound to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Oaten: Is the Minister saying that in future the Government will make such representations to the Commonwealth so that the logic of the Bill is carried through in that area as well?

Mr. Howarth: There is no intention to do so at this time. We have no reason to believe that that would be helpful in our continuing relations with the Commonwealth. I see no reason for such a debate on what are effectively theoretical rights which have never, to my knowledge, been taken up.
I recognise that the real concern behind the amendment, which the hon. Member for East Londonderry expressed, is to disqualify Irish Ministers from serving as Back-Bench Members in this House or the Assembly.
3.45 am
We have been consistent in the view that conflicts of interest might arise if individuals were allowed to be Ministers in both jurisdictions. That is why clause 2 is in the Bill. Any Minister's duty extends far beyond the constituents who elected him or her. Ministers must properly have regard to the interests of all the people for whom they govern.
However, we do not take the view that a conflict of interest arises between being a Minister in one jurisdiction and a Back Bencher in another. Indeed, it is conceivable that a constituency electorate in Northern Ireland might feel that its interests were likely to be advanced better if its Member were also a Minister in the Irish Government. Other constituency electorates would obviously take a different view. Our view, reflected in the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, is that, in a democracy, it is up to the electorate to decide.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: Yes I will, although I was drawing my remarks to a close.

Dr. Lewis: My question is straightforward. Can the Minister envisage an occasion on which a constituency interest in the south might conflict with one in the north, if an individual were elected to serve two constituencies?

Mr. Howarth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman attended the earlier debate when that matter was raised. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made it clear that, in such circumstances, it would be for the two sets of constituents to sort out what was right and proper. It is not proper for the House to set such qualifications in regard to Members. We do accept that there is a distinction, which has some force, between being a Minister in one Government and a Back Bencher in another.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That point is clear. The Ulster Unionists have commented on the representations made on that point and there have been references to the representations made by Sinn Fein. Have there been any representations on that specific point from the SDLP, including from its leader? I ask because there has been discussion not only about a member of the SDLP who held office as a Senator in Ireland and was a Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, but about a role in Ireland for the current leader of the party, who is also a Member of the UK Parliament.

Mr. Howarth: If I am mistaken in my response to the hon. Gentleman, I shall correct it later—I am not aware of any such representations.
I regret that we do not advise acceptance of the amendment, although, as I have pointed out, we have looked sympathetically on amendment No. 7, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who is also the First Minister of the Northern Irish Assembly. In view of that and given my explanations, I hope that—not for reasons of time but of principle—the hon. Member for East Londonderry will not feel it necessary to proceed with the amendment.

Sir Patrick Cormack: When the Minister rose to respond, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and I said to one another, "Ah, the Minister is going to accept the amendment." For a moment, it sounded as though the reflection that the Minister promised us yesterday, and that he told us had taken place overnight—I am not sure which night—had resulted in the Government acknowledging the validity of the case put with quiet eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). We thought that the Minister was going to accept the amendment, but he has not done so.
The Minister tried to fob us off by saying that the Government would accept a later amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and I support the amendment because we realise that the First Minister—who, sadly, cannot be with us at the moment; he is a wise man not to be in this place at this time of the day—and his colleagues have a real point. The Minister's reply dramatically illustrates the absurdity of taking a Bill of this nature in this manner. I do not question the Minister's good faith when he says that reflection has taken place, but I believe that, if there had been the usual timetable, with proper opportunities to discuss the amendments and for Report, it would have been possible to reach a solution acceptable to everyone.
In moving the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry made a very good case. I find it extremely difficult to accept the logic of what the Minister is saying. The Bill is riddled with anomalies, and it seems

to me that we shall have an absolute absurdity if we reject the amendment and allow people to be Back Benchers in one Assembly and Ministers in another. I do not think that it will very often happen. Many of the things in the Bill are wholly theoretical—one can hardly ever conceive of some of these people being elected—but we are legislating. We are saying what is permissible.
The case that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry advanced as he moved the amendment, which was tabled by the First Minister of Northern Ireland, was cogent and sensible. I pay the Under-Secretary the compliment of saying that I believe that if he had had proper time to discuss this, in a cross-party way, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and others, he would probably have been persuaded.

Mr. George Howarth: Am I to take it that it is the position of the official Opposition that they would like to deprive Commonwealth members of the rights that they already enjoy?

Sir Patrick Cormack: We believe that there is an anomaly. We are not seeking to rewrite the whole set-up whereby such members can be Members of the House, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) advanced a powerful case for considering the entire position. However, we are saying that to be a Minister in one country and a Back-Bench Member in another inevitably creates a potential conflict of loyalties that is in the interests of neither party, neither state and neither Government, nor in the interests of the electorate.

Mr. Howarth: I believe that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the amendment that he is speaking to. Perhaps he should read it again. If it is pressed and the Opposition vote for it and are successful, the effect would be to disqualify Ministers of Commonwealth countries from being Members of the House. I made that absolutely clear in my speech. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) takes that position. Is that the position of the official Opposition?

Sir Patrick Cormack: In a word, yes—but I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee of any Minister in any Commonwealth country who has ever sat in the House while he has been a Minister in a Commonwealth country. It is purely theoretical.

Mr. Howarth: That is not the point.

Sir Patrick Cormack: With great respect, it is the point; because when the House passes legislation that is so theoretically absurd as never to be practically possible, it is making an ass of itself.

Mr. Stephen Day: What is the point of passing it?

Sir Patrick Cormack: As my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position—although he should not—what is the point of passing it? The House is being made to look fatuous and absurd by taking the line that the Minister is


taking; and yes, yes, yes: the official Opposition believe that the amendment is entirely logical and sensible, and we will most certainly vote for it.

Mr. Forth: It might help the Committee if I read from the excellent Library research paper on the Bill, which sets the context in which this important debate is taking place.
The main purpose of disqualification is to ensure that Members are fit and proper to sit in the House, and are able to carry out their duties and responsibilities free from undue pressures from other sources. These considerations may be called 'House-based' and are the basis not only of disqualifications under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 but of the whole range of earlier disqualifications for the Commons. However, there is also another consideration, which may be called 'office based'. This is the wish to ensure that an office held by an individual is not adversely affected by his membership of Parliament. This is of more recent origin.
Under the heading "Practicalities", the paper goes on to list a large number of public office-holders who are disqualified under the 1975 Act. The list includes judicial officers, civil servants, members of the armed forces, police officers and so on.
I wish to dispute the Minister's point that we should leave it to the voters to decide whom they shall elect. I suspect that Ministers do not really believe that because, after a moment's thought, they might realise that there might be some people who they would want to prevent from standing for elections. [HON. MEMBERS: "You!"] I thought that I might get that response from some Government Front Benchers.
It is a well-established principle that we have seen fit over many years—including in the 1975 Act—to assist the electorate by disqualifying certain groups and classes of people from the right to stand for election to this legislature. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that we are interfering in the rights of electors, and that they should be allowed to decide on absolutely anyone that they want. They are not and they have not been, and it is well established in our law that disqualification is a proper principle. However good the Minister's idea may sound theoretically, it will not wash.
I ask the Government—do they intend to repeal the 1975 Act? I gather not, so the Government accept the principle that it is valid and legitimate, in certain circumstances, to disqualify certain groups and classes of people from standing for a legislature.

Mr. Fabricant: Would my right hon. Friend speculate on what grounds he thinks that some of those classes of individuals should be disqualified—some, perhaps, because they have a conflict of interest?

Mr. Forth: That is an obvious one. The judiciary has a special lack of relationship with the legislature, if I can put it that way. The military and the police are in another position. It is a matter of great pride to us that our civil service is non-political, and therefore—above certain relatively low levels—civil servants are not able to stand for the House of Commons. They are disqualified. These reasons are well understood and well founded, so we can lay to rest the Minister's spurious argument, which he has used two or three times now.
I have identified some characteristics that Ministers have, as distinct from legislatures, which I believe must disqualify them—in the context of the 1975 Act—from the ability to stand for a legislature. I would broadly categorise the characteristics as Ministers' responsibilities, commitments and access to information. In a sense, their responsibilities are fairly obvious. Anyone who has had the honour of holding ministerial office readily understands the implications of that, as should the Minister himself. It is obvious that anyone with ministerial responsibilities in any political system that is familiar to us would not be able to discharge the responsibilities of a representative or a legislator in a legislature in another country.
4 am
That point must be so self-evident that it is hardly worth making. Yet, it appears that we have to make it because the Minister said that there need be no necessary conflict between being a Minister in one jurisdiction and being a Back Bencher—I think that that was the word he used—in another. That is patently absurd. It is absurd at the level of practicality and at the level of the everyday discharge of a Minister's responsibilities.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I wish to support my right hon. Friend's argument. Is he aware of the report that was produced at the beginning of the year that showed the voting record of the past two Secretaries of State for Wales, both of whom hold offices in the Welsh Assembly and remain Members of this House? In 73 Divisions in the House, one of them voted only once and the other did not vote at all. Does that not illustrate my right hon. Friend's point?

Mr. Forth: What a typically perceptive and helpful remark from my hon. Friend. I could also cite the example of the Prime Minister. How often in the discharge of his high responsibilities does he find time to come to this legislature, of which he is a Member, to vote? The reason that we are given—if we are ever given one—for the Prime Minister's signal failure to attend the House, which he holds in such contempt, is the weight of his ministerial responsibilities. He is busy spinning, making ridiculous visits for photo-opportunities or doing other things, but he does not come here. My hon. Friend makes the effective point that it is difficult to square fully the responsibilities of ministerial office with the full discharge of legislative responsibilities.
I do not want to be particularly offensive or personal, but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not here now. He is probably in his office, signing his letters, going through his red boxes and discharging his ministerial responsibilities. He is not participating in a debate in the House on a matter that relates to his Department. It goes almost without saying that the nature of ministerial responsibilities preclude someone from carrying out a full role in a legislature in his own country, never mind another.
I have referred to the narrow departmental commitments of Ministers. However, they have many others that they rightly have to discharge. They attend meetings with interest groups and travel around the country so that they are aware of the circumstances with


which they have to deal. That is right and appropriate, but it is a serious obstacle to their even contemplating a proper role in a legislature elsewhere.
Then there is the issue of the loyalty to Government expressed through the collective responsibility doctrine with which we are familiar. Again, that is proper and it is expressed in the meetings of Cabinet, Cabinet sub-committees and similar bodies. One does not have to think for very long to realise that the proper exercise of collective responsibility, binding as it does Ministers closely together in the unified discharge of their responsibilities, must be at odds with the suggestion that they could, at one and the same time, be Members of a legislature in another country. The demands and loyalties of collective responsibility must almost constantly conflict with the proper demands of the other legislature. We begin to see emerge a clear pattern of problems and conflicts that provide insurmountable obstacles to someone being a Minister in one jurisdiction and a legislator in another.
I have not yet mentioned the EU dimension, which brings such problems into sharp focus. There, Ministers have to discharge a different responsibility, one that is unusual and provides greater challenges. When a Minister from a country that has the misfortune to be a member of the EU has to deal with the representatives of other EU member states, he finds himself operating in a new political dimension, in which new tensions arise and new loyalties are suggested. He is removed from his own legislature and his own country, never mind that of another. The status of the United Kingdom and the Republic Ireland as EU member states would give rise to conflicts of interest, even in the voting procedures in the Council of Ministers. Such conflicts would provide the ultimate expression of the lack of harmony that one might imagine exists.
At every conceivable level, we can see that the job of a political Minister in an Administration, in the governmental context, carries with it a range of demands, requirements and responsibilities that effectively preclude that Minister from discharging any sort of responsibility in another country's legislature.
The other heading I have jotted down is "Information". Ministers, by definition, are in possession of large amounts of confidential information. Many Ministers are in possession of highly confidential security information that is vital to their country's national interests. It is possible that, were someone in that position to gain a place in a legislature in another country, that person's position might be significantly compromised by his being both in possession of security information from one country and a member of a legislature in another.
I have given a few examples to illustrate the fact that there is a real principle at stake and practical considerations at work. That brings me back to my first argument—that a purist or an innocent like the Minister might argue that such matters can be left to the electorate. However, that is not true.

Mr. George Howarth: Democracy.

Mr. Forth: The Minister mutters, from a sedentary position, the word "democracy". Democracy is a process whereby voters are enabled to choose their

representatives. However, the Minister has not yet responded to the question I asked: whether he wants the 1975 Act to be repealed.

Mr. Hayes: The point is not one of democracy, but one of democratic legitimacy. The legitimacy of the House is derived partly from those who can sit as Members and the means by which they come to do so, and partly from the restrictions on those who cannot, for good constitutional reasons, sit as Members of Parliament. My right hon. Friend gave the excellent example of civil servants and in this sense the democratic legitimacy of Parliament is partly dependent on ineligibility.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I doubt whether it will elicit a helpful response from the Minister. I believe that I have posed a perfectly proper question. Either the Minister will have to say that he intends to repeal the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, because it cuts across his apparent concept of democracy, or he will have to accept that his concept of democracy can encompass a disqualification process properly passed by Parliament in the past.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not the Minister's reliance on the abstract concept of democracy rather fatuous when we consider that if we are talking about a proportional list system in at least one of the parliaments or assemblies, the position on the list may be such that the people have no effective say about whether they can punish an individual for a conflict of interest that he has not satisfactorily resolved? Does not the same apply even in a first-past-the-post system, if he happens to stand successfully for a very safe seat on behalf of his party? The people cannot resolve these conflicts of interest by a process of abstract democracy.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is again correct. Regrettably, we have had a redefinition of the practicalities of democracy by the Government, principally through their introduction of the wicked and pernicious closed-list system for the European elections. The Minister will have to think more carefully before he parades this new and ill-formed definition of democracy before us, which seems to encompass closed lists and the electorate running amok and electing anyone it wants because the Minister will presumably have to repeal the 1975 Act. He cannot have it all ways round and it will have to be one or the other.

Mr. Bercow: The sheer fatuousness of the Minister's position has been adequately exposed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is particularly unfortunate that a Minister should be clinging to a feeble theoretical model of abstract and total democracy, when last week he was seeking to impress us with his knowledge of Popperian theory?

Mr. Forth: Yes. I was present when my hon. Friend and the Minister had a rather frustratingly unsatisfactory exchange about Karl Popper and his works. We may be able to return to that subsequently, but I suspect not on this occasion. Let us put down a marker that we shall have to examine the Minister on his full understanding of Popper to ascertain whether he measures up on that. If


his knowledge of that is as good as his understanding of democracy, I am not optimistic. However, we live in hope.
We are discussing an important amendment. The Minister made some play of the idea that there is something shocking that we should be saying to our partners in the Commonwealth, given the way that a mature Commonwealth has developed, with so many Commonwealth countries having become republics and with the Australians having a proper debate about their relationship with this country and with the Commonwealth as a whole, "You will forgive us, won't you, if we assert the principle that only United Kingdom citizens should be able to be elected to the UK Parliament?" I cannot imagine that any of our Commonwealth friends would be shocked if we said that to them to correct what has now emerged as an anomaly.
I have not yet taken the trouble, although I could attempt to do so and return to help the Committee further with the information, to go through the list of Commonwealth members to see how many of them offer reciprocal arrangements. I shall not do so unless pushed. I would make my own judgment about how shocked or not they might be if we were to end the arrangement. I have no problem with that and no fear of it. I am prepared to have amicable discussions with my friends in the Commonwealth and to say, "You do understand this development, don't you?"

Mr. Oaten: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government had not been rushing the Bill through the House of Commons and had adopted a more normal pace, the discussions of which he talks could have taken place, and we could have had the Commonwealth issue resolved as part of the Bill?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is right. This indicates yet again the indecent haste with which the Government are trying to smuggle, force or ram the Bill through its parliamentary procedure. If there had been proper time between its stages of consideration, as there usually is, we would all, including the Government, have had time properly to consider the matter. We are where we are; we have to deal with current circumstances. The Government want to invite alien nationals from a country that is not even in the Commonwealth to sit in Parliament. Part of their argument is that they want to correct an anomaly and bring a country that voluntarily left the Commonwealth into line with countries that are in the Commonwealth. The logic escapes me, and would have done so even in normal working hours.
The amendment is proper and essential. I hope that the Government will reconsider it before we proceed much further. Failing that, I hope that it will receive wide support from the Committee That will show how seriously we take such matters.

Mr. Donaldson: Earlier, the Minister pressed the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) about the official Opposition's position on the Commonwealth. The problem would not arise if the Government had not created a precedent by affording rights to nationals of a

country that is not a member of the Commonwealth. The Government have caused a problem, by extending to the Irish Republic a privilege that previously applied only to Commonwealth countries. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out, that country left the Commonwealth some years ago. The Government have not provided an adequate reason for extending the privilege. On this side of the Committee, we suspect that the decision is to do with the republican movement rather than with the Government's desire to correct an anomaly.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Can the hon. Gentleman speculate about why Sinn Fein is so keen on the concessions? We have tended to assume that, for some reason, Sinn Fein members want to sit in the United Kingdom Parliament. However, I suspect that they may want that concession so that they can sit in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Am I right, or do they want to sit here as well as in the Dail?

Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman is right. The motivation of Republicans who belong to Sinn Fein-IRA is not taking seats in this House as well as the Irish Parliament, but blocking seats here. The constituents of Mid-Ulster and Belfast, West are not properly represented at Westminster. Members of Sinn Fein-IRA want to hold such seats and be eligible to stand for election to the Irish Parliament, and perhaps hold ministerial office there. Sinn Fein-IRA aspires to be part of a coalition Government after the next election in the Irish Republic, perhaps with as few as four or five seats.
Let us consider circumstances in which a Minister in the Irish Government was also theoretically a Member of Parliament here, but, in practice, did not take his seat. That could cause a conflict of interest. I shall give the Minister an example of a potential conflict of interest for a Minister in the Irish Government who was also a Back-Bench Member of this House. The Irish Republic might declare itself neutral when this country was at war. We might have a Back-Bench Member who was a member of a Government who adopted a neutral stance, which perhaps leaned towards the country with which we were at war. I shall not rehearse the events of 1939 to 1945, when the Irish Republic was neutral. We all know how De Valera, who was then Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, leaned towards the Germans and assisted the German Government in many ways to thwart this country's efforts in defence of freedom. There would be a conflict of interest for a Member of Parliament in a country that was at war, who was also a Minister in a country that was neutral, and in some ways assisted the country with which the first country was at war. That is not an illogical point. Such circumstances could arise in future.
Why is the privilege being extended only to the Irish Republic? Are we suddenly setting the Republic apart from other nations within the European Union? Do we have a special relationship only with the Republic, and not with other partners in the EU? I do not argue for the moment that the privilege should be extended to them—far from it. I cannot understand the Government's logic in wanting to step beyond the confines of the Commonwealth to extend such a privilege to the Irish Republic.
It is churlish of the Minister to launch an attack against the official Opposition on the question of the Commonwealth when the Government are taking the privilege beyond the confines of the Commonwealth and creating a situation that has given rise to the need for the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend is well aware, as I am, that we are talking not only about the fact that the Irish Republic is being treated in a unique way but about the fact that only one party in the whole British Isles is being treated uniquely in regard to the funding of political parties. It claims to be a cross-border body and because of that—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot allow that subject to be debated under this set of amendments.

Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman makes a relevant point that goes to the heart of the debate. Why is this legislation before the House? Despite the Government's failure to provide a proper reason, we have no doubt that it is part of a deal that has been done with the Republican movement. There may be other aspects. We are demeaning the role of a Member of Parliament by encouraging a Member representing a constituency in the United Kingdom to be a Minister in the Government of another country.

Mr. Hayes: Ministers take on authority and power on the basis that they can do certain things but not others. The example was given earlier of confidential information. Certain privileges that are unique to a Minister and not shared by Back Benchers make it entirely inappropriate for someone to serve simultaneously as a Back Bencher and Minister. Is that not right?

Mr. Donaldson: It is. The point was ably made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that there is a conflict of interest, in terms even of the time that a Minister in the Government of another country can devote to his duties in this House. If we say that it is perfectly okay for a Member of this House who has legislative responsibilities to be a Minister in the Government of a foreign country—and so to be unable to devote the time that we expect of our legislators—that demeans and diminishes the role of a Member of Parliament.
It is not sufficient to leave it to constituents to sort the matter out. Are the constituents of Belfast, West likely to remove the Member for that constituency because he is an abstentionist Member of Parliament? We shall see. It is unlikely because those constituents have voted for that Member for reasons other than that he ought to be their proper legislative representative in this House. We cannot rely on the safeguard that the Minister says is available and leave it to constituents to attend to the problem.
Parliament has a wider responsibility to safeguard the constitution of this nation. That is why we are elected to this place. If it is for the people to decide on every occasion, why have Parliament in the first place? On this important constitutional issue, Parliament ought to have the right to legislate to safeguard the role of Members of Parliament in participating properly in the life of this body.
It is wrong for Parliament to create that potential conflict of interest. It is also wrong to move beyond the confines of the Commonwealth and extend to the Irish Republic a privilege not extended to any other nation outside the Commonwealth.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am following the arguments carefully, but I understand that a Minister of the Crown is prevented under legislation from taking a salary from somebody else. I cannot understand how the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can possibly suggest that a Minister could take a separate salary completely outside Government and Parliament.

Mr. Donaldson: We look to the Under-Secretary for a response.
In normal circumstances, no one on this side of the Committee would have raised the issue of ending the current situation in respect of the Commonwealth, because it would not have been significant. The Government have created these circumstances, so they cannot blame the Opposition if we unfortunately have to penalise our friends in Commonwealth countries as we try to safeguard Parliament. The Government are seeking to extend that privilege beyond the Commonwealth without good reason.

Mr. Bercow: Given that a Minister cannot also operate as a Back Bencher in the House and all Ministers readily accept that limitation, is it not peculiar and absurd of the Under-Secretary to argue that a Minister could be a Back Bencher in another House?

Mr. Donaldson: Ministers are denied the role of Back Bencher because of their responsibilities, but they could sit alongside Back Benchers who are Ministers in the Government of another country. That shows the absurdity of asking Parliament to pass this Bill. Again we ask Ministers why. We conclude that it is to assist the representatives of a party that commands 18 per cent. of the vote in Northern Ireland, whose population is 1.7 million of the 56 million or 57 million people in the United Kingdom. That is nonsense, but why is that party so important to the Government? Why are they going through this process? Precisely because that party has something that other parties in the House do not have—an arsenal of illegal weaponry at its disposal. Its mandate comes not merely from the ballot box, but, to quote one of its representatives, from the Armalite.
That party believes that power resides not only in the right of the people to vote in elections, which the Under-Secretary has espoused, but in the barrel of a gun. That is what we are dealing with. Parliament is being asked to change a constitutional aspect of our law to assist that particular party and in that sense the Bill is absurd, in parliamentary and constitutional terms. We are extending to a country that is not in the Commonwealth a privilege that was exclusive to member nations of the Commonwealth. What does that say to those nations, which work alongside us?
The answer to that question concerns our close relationship with the Irish Republic. I am not against good, neighbourly relationships, but surely we ought to ask whether the Irish Republic should rejoin the


Commonwealth if there is a desire for its citizens or Members of its legislature also to be Members of this House.
It appears that that option is not available—that the Irish Government for some reason are not prepared, in spite of the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, to rejoin the Commonwealth. It appears that the special relationship is not quite as special as some people would make it out to be. Indeed, when it comes to extraditing people who have been responsible for some of the most serious crimes in the United Kingdom, the special relationship does not count for very much, as we are seeing at the moment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who has given us some important insights into the Government's motives in bringing forward this legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made an important contribution to the debate, not least because he announced an important new plank of Conservative party policy: this is all part of the commonsense revolution. Indeed if ever there was common sense it is that we should not allow Ministers in Governments in other countries and members of other legislatures to be Members of the House of Commons. It must have been an anomaly that was never intended in any legislation that evolved at the same time as the colonies were developing into the Commonwealth, and it resulted in a power enabling the Commonwealth countries to have Ministers serving as Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. The fact that that privilege has never been exercised by any Commonwealth country, and the fact that it is a privilege that is not reciprocated by any other Commonwealth country, suggests to me that the whole thing was anomalous in the first place and that those Commonwealth countries realised that it would be in breach of common sense to allow their Ministers to be Members of our legislature.
For the Minister to suggest that the only reason he is not prepared to accept the amendment is that it would be an affront to Commonwealth countries is disingenuous in the extreme. It is also wrong of the Minister to suggest that this problem can be overcome by leaving it to the electorate, because the issue is about timing. What happens if somebody who is a Member of Parliament in both a foreign country—a Commonwealth country or the Irish Republic—and in the House then becomes a Minister? What say do the electorate have in that situation? They cannot intervene until the next general election.
The Minister's response that it is for the electorate to deal with the matter does not wash, because the whole essence of the Disqualification Acts is to prevent that from happening in the first place. That is why they take effect before somebody stands for election. For example, before joining the House after the last general election, I was a member of the Health and Safety Commission, and I had to be sure that I had resigned properly from that commission, because it was an office of profit under the

Crown, before standing as a candidate in the general election. At that stage, I could not be sure of the outcome, but I still had to give up my office of profit under the Crown. The Minister is saying that the electorate can intervene, when clearly they cannot.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder whether in the future people will not apply for the Chiltern Hundreds; they will apply to become Ministers in the Irish Republic and therefore disallow themselves from carrying on.

Mr. Chope: That is a very interesting idea. Some hon. Members are highly principled. The former Member for Ceredigion decided that it would be wrong to hold two mandates at the same time, which is why he resigned his position and why a by-election is pending in Ceredigion.
Perhaps one of the reasons why the Government are embarrassed about accepting the amendment is that they have a large number of MPs whom we never see in the House, who hold office in Scotland and Wales as Members of Parliament and of the Assembly, and as Ministers. Effectively, they are wearing three hats and being paid three salaries. Perhaps that is why the Minister does not find it possible to support the amendment: he knows that it attacks the principle of wearing three hats and having three salaries, which I think most members of the public would find offensive. I certainly do.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Three salaries?

Mr. Chope: Until the present Government took office, Ministers took reduced parliamentary salaries. Now, because of the fat cats who are in control, the Government think it necessary for them to have a full parliamentary salary and a full ministerial salary, and for Members of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers to have those two salaries as well. People find that utterly offensive.
This is an issue of common sense. It is not a case of causing affront to the Commonwealth; it is a question of asking whether we are to extend privileges that do not extend currently in circumstances in which they make no sense to ordinary people.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: It is just as well for the Government that the amendment is being debated at 4.36 am. If it were being debated at a more reasonable hour, when the press were present—who knows who is watching on the parliamentary channel; perhaps some insomniacs in the Press Gallery are watching—people would see the absurdity of the Government's proposal, and of driving it through the Committee and the House at this ridiculous hour.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I was greatly encouraged by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). He nearly always says sensible things, and he says them with passion, especially when it comes to matters regarding the House. I was delighted when he announced a shift in Conservative policy on this matter, because it is clear that the 1975 Act is an anachronism. The Government are tinkering with the Act, rather than addressing the fundamental irrelevance of the legislation to our present circumstances.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, it is fatuous to suggest that people who represent constituencies in other legislatures should be entitled to sit in this House or, indeed, the other place.

Mr. Hayes: The Minister is, in fact, challenging the whole principle of disqualification. He said that the arbiter should be the electorate—that the electorate should judge who was eligible or ineligible.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can help. I do not regard the whole question of disqualification as relevant to the discussion of this amendment.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I note your strictures, Mr. Martin. I think that the Minister would like to intervene. I give way.

Mr. George Howarth: I caution the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that they should not misrepresent anything that I have said.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Of course we do not intend to misrepresent anything that the Minister has said. He has been perfectly clear and I think that my hon. Friend made the right assessment of the line the Minister took.
I ask the Minister to contemplate: are we seriously suggesting that a Minister in a Commonwealth country who has the right of residence in this country will apply for membership of the House? Is he seriously telling the public that, in 2000, we believe that that is a serious possibility?

Mr. MacKay: It is preposterous.

Mr. Howarth: Absolutely.
If the Minister is advancing that argument, he should start to consider its logical corollary. If he is not prepared to support the amendment, which would rule out Ministers in other Commonwealth countries becoming members of the UK legislature, we could face some bizarre situations.
My hon. Friends have drawn attention to the idea of people representing other Governments and being fifth columnists here. What would happen, for example, if a Minister from the Government of Zimbabwe took advantage of the legislation, sought election to the House and, by some bizarre circumstance, got elected here? We could then find ourselves in the ludicrous position of a man coming here, taking advantage of being in the Lobby with the Foreign Secretary and saying, "Come on. Give us a few more Hawk spares." He would not say that on behalf of a constituency—well, I suppose that he could be acting on behalf of both constituencies; he could represent a British Aerospace factory in the north-west. Then he would square the circle—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) wish to intervene?

Mr. Purchase: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howarth: We are always looking for interventions by Labour Members, who have been remarkably silent.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Assuming that the Minister from Zimbabwe was sitting on the Government Benches, it would at least create some lively discussions in the Government Lobby on the subject of section 28.

Mr. Howarth: rose—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will not be tempted down that road.

Mr. Howarth: I could be, but, looking at your disposition, Sir Alan, I think that I will resist the temptation to follow my hon. Friend's suggestion. However, there is a serious point here. We are seeking to rule out a circumstance that can prevail at the moment. However bizarre it may sound, legislation currently permits some extraordinary things to happen.
The point that Opposition Members seek to make to the Government is that, instead of dealing properly with disqualification, or qualification for membership of the House, they have gone for one tiny element of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and others have suggested, it is because there is some squalid deal with Sinn Fein, or republicans of some description or other.
The amendment takes a much more fundamental look at the legislation and suggests that if the Government are not prepared to deal comprehensively with the anomalies that arise out of the legislation as it relates to Commonwealth countries, they should accept the amendment, thereby making it explicit that at least we will rule out the possibility of a Minister in another Commonwealth country having the right to sit in the House.
I suppose that one could say that there might be advantages. If a Minister in Barbados sought membership of the House, many of us could find arguments for reciprocity, which would become hugely attractive. Conversations in the Lobby would be wholly different from the one that I have outlined in connection with Zimbabwe.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Twinning would take on another form.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed. There could be all sorts of corruption possibilities as people competed for twinning with Barbados.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is describing pithily what will obviously be a conflict of interest if we are not successful in securing the amendment's passage. Does he agree that allowing a Minister in another Parliament to serve as a Back Bencher in this Parliament would enable that individual to use the latter capacity to advance his interests in the former? Could we not have a situation in which such a Minister, using his Back-Bench role in this


Parliament, would be able not only to make representations to the Foreign Secretary, but, for example, to lobby the Secretary of State for International Development for an improvement in the aid and trade provision to the country in which he was a Minister?

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Pie in the sky.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) has just said that that is a load of rubbish, but, as you will attest, Sir Alan, he has not been in the Chamber or listened to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is entirely right.
We have to consider other matters. Membership of the House carries certain other benefits, such as provision of research assistants; access to the Library and to information; and the ability to table questions and early-day motions. All those benefits would be afforded to people who might have a conflict of allegiance, which is a serious matter.
The situation was wholly different in 1955, when Commonwealth countries were essentially governed from this place. Although those who represented people in those various countries sat in their own legislatures, they were British citizens and probably had a house also in the United Kingdom. Therefore, at the time, it made perfect sense not to rule out their entitlement to sit in this place. However, that was 1955.
In 1975, the opportunity was not sought to change the legislation to reflect the fact that Britain had gradually given up its colonial inheritance.
Today, 43 years on from the first colony's independence—in the Gold Coast, which became Ghana in 1957—we are in a wholly different position. What is our Government's motto? What was the watchword that appeared in the Queen's Speech time after time? It was modernisation. We have a Government who are committed to modernisation, but they have had the audacity to introduce this miserable little Bill, the true motive for which they will not—

The Chairman: Order. In previous speeches, the hon. Gentleman has tried to extend his comments to deal with the Bill's general principle, but that is not permitted. He must concentrate his remarks on amendment No. 6, and I do not want to hear arguments that I have already heard repeated. He must stay within the bounds of the amendment and in order.

Mr. Howarth: I apologise and take your strictures, Sir Alan.
The Bill presented the Government with an opportunity for modernisation. Amendment No. 6 offers a microcosm of such modernisation. It would provide an opportunity for the Government to say, "We recognise that, although the Disqualification Act 1975 is still valid, we wish to make some wholesale changes to it. We'll deal properly with it."
Although the Opposition cannot persuade the Government to make other changes, amendment No. 6—which has been tabled not only by official Opposition Members, but by Ulster Unionist Members—would go at least some way towards dealing with one outrageous and

glaring anomaly in the current legislation. Ministers have made it perfectly clear that they are not prepared to accept even that, but that does not sit at one with the Government's much-vaunted claim to be in the van of modernisation. They are making a big mistake.

Mr. Hayes: The Minister defended his position with regard to the amendment by saying that the electorate would be the arbiters of whether people's actions were influenced by a conflict of interest. However, we know from experience that politicians in those circumstances typically do not go before their electors. People who rat on their friends and deceive their party— [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. First, that intervention is far too long. Secondly, I do not wish to hear sedentary comments from the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Howarth: I agree—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman for Blyth Valley is not seeking to defy the Chair.

Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), but I think that I have made the point that I wanted to make.

Mr. William Ross: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman reflected on the mischief that a Minister of a foreign Government could cause if elected to the House. However, he did not mention that any such individual could set up pressure groups to create an atmosphere of pressure on the Government.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has drawn the Committee's attention to the further mischief that could be pursued if Ministers in a foreign—albeit Commonwealth—Government were allowed to participate in our proceedings.
I hope that a wider audience will learn that, in the middle of the night, the Government were unwilling to address an issue drawn to their attention by Conservative Members and by members of the Ulster Unionist party. In rejecting the amendment, the Government have shown that they are not prepared to deal comprehensively with an anachronistic piece of legislation.

Mr. Fabricant: I shall not rehearse what has been said about the amendment, but some other points occur to me. We have had 1,000 days of this Labour Government. Concession and appeasement have been evident in our relations with Ireland, and now there is a general erosion of the powers of this House.
I telephoned a friend in Seattle to discuss the amendment. He could not believe what the Bill proposes. He likened it to a member of a foreign Government being in the House of Representatives at the US Congress and arguing his country's case in the Government of the United States of America. He asked whether that was what we—he called us "you guys"—intended to do.
My American accent may not be very convincing, but that is an extraordinary proposition. The Bill would extend—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Second Reading point. I remind him that Second Reading is over. He must speak to the amendment. I do not want to hear such general comments; the time for them has passed.

Mr. Fabricant: The Bill would allow an Irish Government Minister to serve here as a Back Bencher. The Minister says that there is nothing wrong with that. After all, we are not saying that a Minister in the Irish Government would become a Minister of the British Crown. He said that it was perfectly normal and satisfactory for a Minister in the Irish Government to become a British Back Bencher. But it is extraordinary.
We know that smuggling goes on between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] There may be instances in which an equalisation of excise duties is in the interests of the Republic of Ireland. What is to stop an Irish Government Minister, on these green Benches, wearing his British Back Bencher's hat, arguing the case for equalising excise duties? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) is making sedentary interventions. He has come into the Chamber— staggered into the Chamber, I might say—and then makes interventions from a sedentary position. Would the hon. Gentleman now like to make a sensible point?

The Chairman: Order. I think that if the hon. Gentleman reads those words in Hansard, he will regret them. I hope that he will not pursue that particular line.

Mr. Fabricant: My point is that there would occasionally be conflicts of interest between someone who represented the Irish Government and was also a British Back Bencher. It is quite extraordinary that the clause is being debated, particularly at four minutes to 5 in the morning—in the hope, I suspect, that it will be covered on today's radio and television. Nevertheless I hope that it will.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks would get no coverage, at whatever time of day he made them.

Mr. Fabricant: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman treats so lightly the British constitution. The hon. Gentleman, who has just wandered into the Chamber and is chuckling away, may or may not have been watching our proceedings on the screen. Is he aware that we are discussing the sovereignty of this Parliament?

The Chairman: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the amendment? His general point about possible inconsistency has been worked extremely hard for many hours, and I do not think that it can continue to be repeated if the hon. Gentleman wishes to remain in order.

Mr. Fabricant: I am discussing the amendment, Sir Alan. The whole point about the amendment is to prevent a Minister in the Irish Government from appearing in this Chamber. My point, which has not been

made before, is that there are questions to do, for example, with excise duties between the two countries. There are other questions, such as security, which have been raised before. They may cause a conflict of interest between the House and the Dail. It is important that these issues be fully discussed. I have been on my feet for only six minutes, and I do not think it unreasonable to rehearse those issues.

The Chairman: Order. I am trying to assist the hon. Gentleman. He knows that he is going over ground that has been gone over already. Perhaps I should remind him about Standing Order No. 42. I am not prepared to hear the same arguments made over and over again, particularly if they are more nearly related to the general principle of the Bill, which was decided by the House on Second Reading, than to this specific amendment.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Sir Alan. The amendment specifies that no Minister
in the government of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom
can be a Minister in the United Kingdom Government. That is absolutely right. No other contribution today has referred to cross-border issues such as smuggling, excise duties and other problems in transferring goods across the border.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now repeated himself on those very points. It may be in order to produce an example, but not to develop it to excess, as I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do.

Mr. Fabricant: I am only repeating myself because I am not being allowed to make my point without some interruption from the Chair. [Interruption.] However, I take your point, Sir Alan. The amendment relates to an important constitutional issue, and should be supported by Members on both sides of the Committee who have any interest in the welfare of the House and of the constituents who elected them to it.

5 am

Mr. MacKay: I hesitated before rising to speak, because I assumed that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would be winding up the debate. There have been several significant contributions—not least that of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who has considerable experience in the matters that we have been discussing. Perhaps I was premature in rising. Will the Minister confirm that he is not going to wind up? I do not want to jump in ahead of him.

Mr. George Howarth: It is strange, Sir Alan. A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I intended to speak again; I made it perfectly clear that I had said everything that I wanted to say in my previous contribution. I do not know why he should assume that I had changed my mind.

Mr. MacKay: I assumed that I had misheard the Minister. When there has been significant debate on a significant amendment—especially an amendment signed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the First Minister in Northern Ireland, and co-signed by


other right hon. and hon. Members—and the debate has lasted for more than an hour, with five or six contributions, it is normally courteous to the Committee for the Minister to wind up. However, neither you, Sir Alan, nor I can force the Minister to wind up, so I shall proceed with my winding-up remarks. It is regrettable that the Minister has not paid the Committee the courtesy of winding up the debate. Perhaps, on mature reflection, he might want to do so when I sit down.
It is worth observing, in what has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate, that we have heard no contributions in support of the Minister from Labour Members. We must draw our conclusions on that point.
I am broadly agnostic about the Bill, but there seem to be two aspects of considerable concern. Those concerns have been expressed not only by Conservative Members, but by Unionist Members and by at least one right hon. and one hon. Member on the Government Benches—the only two Labour Members who have made any significant contribution during the Committee's proceedings.
The first concern is that there has been constant take, take, take by the paramilitaries—republican and so-called loyalist—with no give whatever. I made that point earlier, so if I pursue it now, I suspect that I shall be out of order.
The second valid concern is that there will be conflicts of interest and of loyalty. I welcome the fact that, to some extent, those conflicts have been acknowledged by the Government in clause 2. The clause refers to the disqualification from ministerial office in Northern Ireland of anyone who holds ministerial office in the Republic. No doubt, the Minister will want to refer to that matter when we reach clause 2—as will many right hon. and hon. Members.
There seems to be an absolute acknowledgement that there could be a conflict of interest. Once that has been accepted, we can go a stage further. I welcome the fact that, when we come to clause 2, the Minister has agreed to accept amendment No. 7, although I am not sure whether it was in order for him to mention it during this debate. That provision also acknowledges a conflict of interest, if I have read the amendment correctly. As you will recall, Sir Alan, we have had little time to prepare the amendments, because, for some strange reason, the Government are bulldozing the Bill through Parliament in two parliamentary days; something that never happens normally.
The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) laughs. Let me explain to her, because she is probably still quite a new Member of the House, although she is a Minister in the Whips Office—

Mrs. Anne McGuire: Do not patronise me.

Mr. MacKay: I think that I will patronise the hon. Lady a little, because she obviously thought it was very funny that an important constitutional Bill should be bulldozed through in two days. A Bill usually has a Second Reading and then, the following week or thereafter, passes into Committee. Only when a Bill is urgent or an emergency Bill do Second Reading and Committee take place on consecutive days; and early in

the Committee the Under-Secretary at the Home Office admitted, from a sedentary position, that the Bill was neither urgent nor an emergency Bill.
I return to the welcome concession that it appears that the Government intend to make when we reach clause 2, by accepting amendment No. 7. It seems that the Minister is accepting that someone cannot simultaneously be a Minister in the Republic and the Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer in the Assembly. So yet again we have the acceptance of an anomaly and a conflict of interest.
In moving amendment No. 6, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was absolutely right to say that it is vital that, if a person is a Minister in the Republic, they lose their rights to be a Member of either the Northern Ireland Assembly or this Parliament. There is a total conflict of interest.
I said that I was agnostic. I am quite prepared to acknowledge that there might or might not be a conflict of interest in being simultaneously a Member of the Dail and a Member of this Parliament, but I have absolutely no doubt that once one becomes a Minister and is a servant of the country, there is a conflict of interest if one is in another legislature. Therefore I am even more convinced than when I added my name to the amendment originally tabled by the First Minister that I was right to do so.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am disappointed that the Minister would not respond. Surely, under the Government rules that we work to, a Minister cannot draw a salary in another House or anywhere else, so we are disallowed from benefiting from the provision, and only people sitting as Ministers in the Irish Republic would be able to draw the two salaries.

Mr. MacKay: Correct me if I am wrong, Sir Alan, but I believe that new clauses 4 and 5, which appear much later in the selection list, cover that point. I suspect that I would be out of order if I responded in detail, except to say that I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's point.
I return to amendment No. 6. Before I was interrupted, I was making the—I thought—important point that almost every Member who has contributed to the debate has asked why the Minister is insisting that someone can be a Minister in the Republic and still remain a Member of this place or of the Assembly.
It is absolutely clear to any of us who know the Republic well and travel there regularly that in the mainstream political parties in the Republic, the people who have, from time to time, held ministerial office have absolutely no wish, desire or expectation to be Members either of the House or of the Assembly. There is only one reason for the provision. Mr. Gerry Adams and other members of Sinn Fein are not only Members of the Assembly, duly and correctly elected. They are not only Members of this House—in the case of Mr. Adams, who has not taken his seat for Belfast, West, and of Mr. McGuinness, who has not taken his seat for Mid-Ulster. We believe that some of those members of Sinn Fein who have been elected to our House and/or the Assembly would like to stand for the Dail. They have the deeply misconceived idea that, if they stand for the Dail and get elected in some numbers—which is entirely a matter for the Irish electorate, not for me, so I shall not comment on the merits of their getting elected—they will


hold the balance of power, due to the bizarre proportional representation voting system for the Dail. They then believe that one or other of the parties will invite them into coalition, and they will be Ministers. I do not believe that my friends in Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrats and the Irish Labour party in the Dail would ever do that, but that is the reason why the Minister is resisting the amendment. It is a pretty shabby reason.
If that is not the reason, I would like to know why the Minister is resisting an amendment that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—someone whom the Minister and I have rightly praised, and will continue to praise in the difficult weeks and months ahead—has tabled with considerable thought, and which was moved eloquently by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I can think of no conceivable reason why the Minister cannot accept it. It is strange that he can accept the position that Lord Alderdice holds, and it appears that amendment No. 7 may be acceptable. However, that is acceptable only if Mr. Adams and Sinn Fein do not want to hold the positions.

Mr. George Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman should not put words in my mouth. I did not say any of the things that he has just attributed to me.

Mr. MacKay: With respect, it is difficult to know what the Minister is or is not saying as he is refusing to wind up the debate. If he declines to give his views, I have to interpret them as best I can. I apologise if I have misinterpreted the Minister. There seems to be a simple solution—that when I sit down, he should wind up the debate.
The Minister told the Committee earlier that there were private discussions between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann which resulted in some changes to the Bill before it was published, one of which was clause 2. That is to be welcomed, as is the fact that the Minister plans to make further concessions in clause 2.
Having made those concessions, there is no logical reason why the Minister cannot accept this amendment as well, as it is part of the same package and deals with the same point—a conflict of interest that we are trying to avoid. The only conclusion that we can reach is that this is at Sinn Fein's request because Sinn Fein members have a misguided view that they can be elected to seats in the Dail, hold the balance of power and become Ministers. That is a deeply shabby state of affairs, and I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. If he does not, the Committee will accept that I have found the reason.

Mr. George Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I said everything that I considered to be necessary when I spoke earlier. Frankly, it would be superfluous for me to make yet another speech, repeating all the points that I made earlier. It seems to me that there has been far too much repetition already in the debate tonight.

Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: indicated dissent.

The Chairman: Order. I think that the Minister has finished his remarks.

Mr. William Ross: I moved the amendment and there has been a small amount of debate on it. Many questions have been put to the Minister but, sadly, he has declined to answer them.
The Minister suggested that clause 2 was inserted at the insistence of the Ulster Unionist party leader, the First Minister. Was the entire clause inserted at his insistence? It would have been a remarkably short Bill without it. What did the Government intend when the Bill was restricted to the provisions in clauses 1 and 3, which merely repeals a section of an existing Act?
The Minister told us that he had grave objections to the amendment. He said that if the Government accepted it, the Commonwealth element would be excluded. That is correct, but some people said yesterday for reasons that have again been advanced in detail today that we should reconsider the involvement of Commonwealth countries in this context. If that is all that worries him about the amendment, will he accept it table one himself on Report that would take care of that objection?

Mr. MacKay: Surely, the hon. Gentleman realises that the Bill will not have a Report stage. It is being bulldozed through, so we shall have no chance to debate it on Report. I am afraid that he will be unlucky.

Mr. Ross: On the face of it, that is correct. However, we have been told that, under certain circumstances, manuscript amendments would be accepted. If the Minister tabled a manuscript amendment, no doubt the Table Office would accept it and you, Sir Alan, could select it so that we could discuss and rapidly agree to it. It is just a matter of the Minister scribbling it out, perhaps with a little help. It could preserve the heart of this amendment by excluding foreigners, but include those whom I consider our cousins from Commonwealth countries.
The Minister said that a number of people and parties, including the Government of the Irish Republic, were consulted but that there was no consultation with Commonwealth countries. We understand that because of the short time scale involved. However, we have not been given—and we should be interested to see it—a full list of the individuals who have been consulted about the Bill and the amendments.

Mr. George Howarth: The Bill was published before Christmas and it was wide open to everybody, whatever their interest in these matters, to consider it and make the necessary representations. As I said earlier, I do not have to hand a list of the representations that we have received, but we have not been inundated with them from the


Opposition or from any other part of the House. It would be superfluous to go over that argument with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ross: The Minister refers to representations made after the Bill was published, but I am talking about the consultations, which he has already disclosed in part, that took place before the Bill was drawn up.

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition expected a proper interval between Second Reading and the Committee stage, so that there would be a proper opportunity to study the Bill and to table appropriate amendments?

Mr. George Howarth: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The Minister cannot intervene on an intervention.

Mr. Ross: No doubt, the Minister will want to intervene on me.

Mr. George Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, yet again. May I repeat the point that has been made before to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), that the usual channels exist precisely so that such representations can be made. However, they were not made.

Mr. Ross: As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has already pointed out, members of our party are not involved in the usual channels. Two weeks ago, he made representations asking for information, but received none.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Bill clearly states that it was ordered to be printed on 21 December 1999, which was either the day the House rose or the day before. It is wholly disingenuous to suggest that there was a great opportunity for consideration, as though we were meant to take the Bill home with us and study it on Christmas eve and Christmas day.

Mr. Ross: That makes us more suspicious. I was even more annoyed that I caught the flu bug over Christmas and so was not in any state to plough through a Bill, even one as short as this one.
The Minister has still not dealt with my point, which is that there is a difference between representations made after the Bill was published and the consultation that he admits took place with Sinn Fein and the Irish Government. In addition, he has not yet told the Committee who else was consulted about the content of the Bill—

The Chairman: Order. I have to remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have had to do several times already, that he should be speaking specifically about the amendment, not about more general matters that he believes overhang it. We are debating the amendment.

Mr. Ross: Regrettably, Sir Alan, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who

composed the amendment, is not present. I do not know whether it arose from his consultation with the Government, or whether he tabled it in sheer frustration at not having had the opportunity for full consultation before the Bill was published—

The Chairman: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has nobly stepped into the breach to move the amendment, he should do so in his own capacity, rather than speculating about what other right hon. and hon. Members might have done.

Mr. Ross: As you know, Sir Alan, I am always willing to move amendments, no matter how scant my knowledge. I do so in the sure expectation, which has been fulfilled in today's debate, that as the debate proceeds more information will seep out. As more information has been provided throughout today's debate and yesterday's, we have become more suspicious about the intentions underlying the Bill—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must listen to what I am saying, which is that he must stick to the amendment. We are not debating the Bill as a whole. The House has already decided on Second Reading that the Bill should be accepted in principle. We are now dealing with the amendment.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Sir Alan. The Committee is clearly in some difficulty and I wonder whether you are able to help. It would be in the interests of the House if there could be a Report stage and if manuscript amendments could be submitted for scrutiny by you and the Speaker. Will it be possible to have a relatively brief suspension between the conclusion of Committee and the commencement of Report?

The Chairman: There is no case for that—that eventuality does not arise. The House made a decision to proceed with the business until any hour and that is the decision that I must apply.

Mr. Ross: That was a welcome decision by the House, because it gives us time to explore the issues in moderate detail. We still have a long time to go—we do not even have to stop until this time tomorrow morning. There is no reason not to keep going, as everyone appears perfectly content and well settled down for a long stay. I was a Member of Parliament in the 1970s, when such evenings were quite—

The Chairman: Order. We do not need a trip down memory lane. We must return to the amendment.

Mr. Ross: Trips down memory lane sometimes serve to refresh one's memory of happier times when the House sat all night.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: It was not under a Labour Government.

Mr. Ross: As I recall, the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of Parliament then.
The amendment is designed to improve the Bill. In that context, what impinges on one part of the Bill must have an influence on the rest of it. On occasion, therefore, one has to widen the scope so that the amendment can be set in the context of the Bill as a whole.
The amendment seeks to remove the capacity of Ministers of foreign nations to become Back-Bench Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If anyone is elected to any legislature, whether here, the Assembly or anywhere else, there is no guarantee that he will complete the full term of office. A Member might appear in the Assembly from elsewhere. He might be there as an independent, and that would most likely be the case. Under section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 there seems to be some difficulty in filling the vacancy. The Secretary of State
may by order make provision for the filling of vacancies occurring in the Assembly's membership … Such provision may be made by reference to by-elections or substitutes or such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
In that light, I am not entirely sure about the provision for filling a vacancy caused if the sort of Member to which the amendment relates were to die. Such a Member may resign or want to emigrate. He might be needed back at home. In such circumstances, he might not be able to complete his term, so there would be a vacancy. How would it be filled? That is only one of the side issues that flow directly from the amendment. I am curious that the Minister has decided that he will not say anything. I hope that he will address the matter and give us his advice.
The amendment that deals with Ministers from the Irish Republic is welcome, but I can think of other people who will come in from other countries who might well be Irish nationalists or Irish republicans in disguise, who would act as fifth columnists within the Northern Ireland Assembly. Even if they were not Ministers in the Assembly, they could become Chairmen of Committees, for example. In that powerful position they could pursue an objective that the generality of the population of Northern Ireland might not wish to see pursued. Whenever I consider that possibility and the inherent dangers for the people of Northern Ireland, I see that they fit in with new articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Government draft legislation to amend the constitution.
You will be aware, Sir Alan, having been an assiduous observer of these matters, that although the original articles disappeared, a new one appeared which stated:
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.
That is the sort of person of whom I am thinking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, we and our hon. Friends would be cherished.
Article 3 states:
It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities … recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people.

It is that consent that we are concerned with because we see signs that we shall be undermined by people coming in through the loophole that is left in the Bill, which the amendment seeks to close. I presume that people such as Austin Currie, who has already been mentioned, could stand for election. He has been a prominent member of the Dublin political establishment for many years. He is not friendly to the Unionist position, and we fear that a chap like him could get elected and be in a position to undermine Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom.
5.30 am
What are the real reasons for the Bill? Has Sinn Fein agreed to it and does it disagree with the sort of measures that the amendment proposes? It is not the potential conflict of interest, but the potential conjunction of interest with that of the Irish Republic that worries me. A litany of measures favours the Sinn Fein-IRA element, and no one else. For those who care to look for it, there is clear evidence that Sinn Fein is being favoured in many ways, including the funding of political parties.

Mr. Maginnis: Does my hon. Friend realise that if the Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), took his seat in the Dail and became a Minister there, he would have to give up his position in the Assembly? Since the position of Deputy First Minister is inextricably linked with that of First Minister, the enforced resignation of the former would terminate the office of the latter. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary has considered the consequences of that.

Mr. Ross: I do not know whether the Under-Secretary has considered that, but I have. It is one of the reasons for my objections to many elements of the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) shouts from a sedentary position. If he wants to make a speech or intervene, I am more than happy to give way to him. If a comment is not worth making in a speech, it is not worth making from behind.

Mr. Bercow: Or even out of his behind.

Mr. Ross: I shall use my discretion and stick closely to what I intended to say.
I have almost reached the end of my remarks. [Interruption.] I could go on, but I know that hon. Members are anxious to examine the next group of amendments. When I have finished speaking on this group, I shall have 15 minutes in which to collect my thoughts and then I shall be on my feet again to explain the problems that the next group tries to redress.

Mr. MacKay: First, we shall discuss clause stand part.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is right; we shall spend a few minutes discussing clause stand part. That will take us until dawn at least. [Interruption.] It has been a long and cheerful night, and we are now reaching the giggly stage. That used to happen at about 3 am or 4 am, but it has happened a little later today.
I have expressed my views on the amendment and failed to get clear answers from the Under-Secretary about the reason for his refusal to accept the amendment or to undertake to table an amendment on Report or in another place to protect the Commonwealth, which, so far as I could gather from his initial remarks, was the only reason for his view—

Mr. George Howarth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary shakes his head and thus suggests that there were other reasons. He must reply to the debate and explain the other elements that caused him anxiety. I shall press the amendment to a Division, but I am happy to allow the Under-Secretary to intervene. Does he wish to do that?

Mr. Howarth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: Sadly, the Minister does not have an answer. He is not prepared to make an effort to improve the Bill. In the light of that, I have no choice but to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 25, Noes 224.

Division No. 43]
[5.34 am


AYES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bercow, John
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maginnis, Ken


Chope, Christopher
Oaten, Mark


Clappison, James
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan



Swayne, Desmond


Cran, James
Syms, Robert


Day, Stephen
Thompson, William


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Tredinnick, David


Fabricant, Michael
Walter, Robert


Forth, Rt Hon Eric



Hayes, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mr. John Randall and


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. Roy Beggs.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Browne, Desmond


Alexander, Douglas
Burgon, Colin


Allen, Graham
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Austin, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barnes, Harry
Caplin, Ivor


Battle, John
Cawsey, Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clapham, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bennett, Andrew F



Benton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Best, Harold
Clelland, David


Betts, Clive
Coaker, Vernon


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cohen, Harry


Blizzard, Bob
Coleman, Iain


Borrow, David
Colman, Tony


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Connarty, Michael


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradshaw, Ben
Corston, Jean





Cousins, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Cranston, Ross
Levitt, Tom


Crausby, David
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Cummings, John
Linton, Martin


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Lock, David


Dalyell, Tam
Love, Andrew


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davidson, Ian
McCabe, Steve


Dawson, Hilton
Macdonald, Calum


Dean, Mrs Janet
McDonnell, John


Denham, John
McFall, John


Dobbin, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Donohoe, Brian H
Mackinlay, Andrew


Doran, Frank
McNulty, Tony


Dowd, Jim
Mactaggart, Fiona


Efford, Clive
McWalter, Tony


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Mallaber, Judy


Ennis, Jeff
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Flint, Caroline
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Merron, Gillian


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Moffatt, Laura


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gapes, Mike
Moran, Ms Margaret


Gardiner, Barry
Morley, Elliot


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gerrard, Neil



Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mountford, Kali


Goggins, Paul
Mudie, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Grogan, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Pearson, Ian


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Perham, Ms Linda


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Pickthall, Colin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Pike, Peter L


Healey, John
Plaskitt, James


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Pollard, Kerry


Hepburn, Stephen
Pope, Greg


Hesford, Stephen
Pound, Stephen


Hill, Keith
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hope, Phil
Prosser, Gwyn


Hopkins, Kelvin
Purchase, Ken


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Quinn, Lawrie


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Howells, Dr Kim
Rammell, Bill


Hoyle, Lindsay
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Rooney, Terry


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Savidge, Malcolm


Jamieson, David
Sawford, Phil


Jenkins, Brian
Shaw, Jonathan


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Singh, Marsha


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Soley, Clive


Kemp, Fraser
Southworth, Ms Helen


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Kidney, David
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Steinberg, Gerry


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Stevenson, George


Laxton, Bob
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Lepper, David
Stinchcombe, Paul






Stringer, Graham
Ward, Ms Claire


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wareing, Robert N


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Watts, David


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wicks, Malcolm


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wills, Michael


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Todd, Mark
Wood, Mike


Trickett, Jon
Woodward, Shaun


Truswell, Paul
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tynan, Bill
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Walley, Ms Joan
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.
THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 68, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 24.

Division No. 44]
[5.47 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cranston, Ross


Alexander, Douglas
Crausby, David


Allen, Graham
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Atkins, Charlotte
Cummings, John


Austin, John
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Barnes, Harry
Daryell, Tam


Battle, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dawson, Hilton


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bennett, Andrew F
Denham, John


Benton, Joe
Dobbin, Jim


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Best, Harold
Doran, Frank


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Efford, Clive


Blizzard, Bob
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Borrow, David
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Flint, Caroline


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gardiner, Barry


Caplin, Ivor
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Cawsey, Ian
Gerrard, Neil


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clapham, Michael
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coaker, Vernon
Grogan, John


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coleman, Iain
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Colman, Tony
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Connarty, Michael
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Corbyn, Jeremy
Healey, John


Corston, Jean
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)





Hepburn, Stephen
Perham, Ms Linda


Hesford, Stephen
Pickthall, Colin


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L


Hope, Phil
Plaskitt, James


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pollard, Kerry


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pound, Stephen


Howells, Dr Kim
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Prosser, Gwyn


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Purchase, Ken


Iddon, Dr Brian
Quinn, Lawrie


Illsley, Eric
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Rammell, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Jamieson, David
Rooney, Terry


Jenkins, Brian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Mrs Rona (Newark)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Savidge, Malcolm


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Sawford, Phil


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sheerman, Barry


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Kemp, Fraser
Singh, Marsha


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Skinner, Dennis


Kidney, David
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Soley, Clive


Laxton, Bob
Southworth, Ms Helen


Lepper, David
Squire, Ms Rachel


Leslie, Christopher
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Levitt, Tom
Steinberg, Gerry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Stevenson, George


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Linton, Martin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Lock, David
Stringer, Graham


Love, Andrew
Stuart, Ms Gisela


McAvoy, Thomas
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McCabe, Steve
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


McDonnell John
Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


McFall, John



McIsaac, Shona
Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark


Mackinlay, Andrew
Trickett, Jon



Trickett, Jon


McNulty, Tony
Truswell, Paul


Mactaggart, Fiona
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


McWalter, Tony
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Mallaber, Judy
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tynan, Bill


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Walley, Ms Joan


Martlew, Eric
Ward, Ms Claire


Merron, Gillian
Wareing, Robert N


Miller, Andrew
Watts, David


Moffatt, Laura
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wicks, Malcolm


Morley, Elliot
Wills, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Mountford, Kali
Wood, Mike


Mudie, George
Woodward, Shaun


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Woolas, Phil


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Worthington, Tony


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tellers for the Ayes:


Palmer, Dr Nick
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Pearson, Ian
Mr. Don Touhig.


NOES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clappison, James


Bercow, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Cran, James


Chope, Christopher
Day, Stephen






Donaldson, Jeffrey
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fabricant, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Syms, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, William


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Walter, Robert


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Oaten, Mark
Mr. John Randall and


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. Roy Beggs.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Will you clarify something for the benefit of the Committee? I believe that it is right that sittings in Westminster Hall are not affected, irrespective of how long the Committee sits, and that, although it is still Tuesday in the House, Wednesday in Westminster Hall will happen as planned. Will you confirm that that is the case?

The Chairman: The Standing Orders are specific. Sittings in Westminster Hall are not affected by a late sitting in the Chamber. Indeed, I can confirm that I shall have the honour of chairing the sitting in Westminster Hall.

Clause 2

DISQUALIFICATION FOR MINISTERIAL OFFICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 21, page 1, line 13, after 'Minister', insert—
'Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 7, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
'or
'(d) be nominated as a chairman or a deputy chairman of a statutory committee'.
Amendment No. 14, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
'or is Chair or Vice Chair of a Subject Committee in the legislature of Ireland'.
Amendment No. 18, page 1, line 18, at end add—
'or on becoming a Chair or Vice Chair of a subject Committee'.
New clause 3—Disqualification from election as Speaker or Deputy Speaker—
'No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland (the Oireachtas) may be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons'.
Amendment No. 9, in title, line 5, leave out 'Ministerial office' and insert 'certain offices'.

Mr. Ross: I had hoped that we would have time to range back over the previous debates. A number of things need to be explored, especially as the Minister saw fit not to reply to the short debate on the previous group of amendments, but, in your wisdom, Sir Alan, you have chosen otherwise, so we have come somewhat sooner than we had expected to the group of amendments relating to clause 2.
As you have said, Sir Alan, there are five amendments and a new clause in the new group. They are all much of a muchness. The same general thesis runs through

them all. One Minister—he seems to have departed; no, he is there—said earlier that he was minded perhaps to accept amendment No. 7.
6 am
As you will see, Sir Alan, the amendments were tabled by me, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and by the right hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). The amendments in the group all have a certain sameness about them, and are all related in the sense that they are aimed at preventing the same evil. Therefore, if the Government really want to make some progress on the Bill, the Minister should stop me now and say that the Government will happily accept the whole group of amendments. That would immediately resolve the difficulty.
The Minister seems to be unwilling to do that, although he has already said that he is accepting the principle in one amendment. As the principle is the same in all the amendments, what on earth is he worrying about? If the principle in amendments Nos. 7 and 21 is acceptable, why should it not be acceptable in new clause 3?

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not the hon. Gentleman making the simple mistake of assuming that the Government will show some consistency?

Mr. Ross: What troubles me is that, although the Government are sometimes consistent, the driving force behind their consistency is so carefully concealed behind a smokescreen of words and misdemeanours. One is never able to catch up with what they are doing until the evil consequences of their actions appear one year or five years later.

Mr. Swayne: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is being fair when he says that the same principle underlines all the amendments. The chairmen are most definitely Back Benchers and are not at all comparable to members of the Executive. I think that the hon. Gentleman may have tabled and moved essentially a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman may justifiably accuse me of many things, but, on this occasion, not of tabling a wrecking amendment. I am anxious to improve the Bill, which needs so much improvement that it needs to be rebuilt. However, that is a totally different matter from wrecking it completely.
The Government must see some good in the proposals, or they have been grievously misled by the IRA. Perhaps Ministers have been so threatened or blackmailed by the IRA's weapons or other means that they feel they have to do as they are told. However, I assure the Committee that amendment No. 21 is certainly not a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Swayne: rose—

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed for a few minutes, he will see that my proposals are logical.

Mr. Forth: For the sake of clarity, will my hon. Friend tell me why he has resorted to that ghastly "chair and vice


chair" formulation? Conservative Members still talk about chairman and vice chairman, and we are proud and happy to do so. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends from Northern Ireland have not slipped into political correctness.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that our proposals had to be tabled in great haste, before we were able to think them through entirely. So many people are now so anxious to apply the strictures of political correctness that they might ask, "What if it is a lady?", forgetting that, in United Kingdom legislation, the legal definition of the male embraces the female—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentleman should not get too carried away with that information; it is much too late, or much too early, for that.
I am talking about a legal definition, which Ministers will understand perfectly well. In British law, the term "he" encompasses "she".

Dr. Julian Lewis: It even embraces her.

Mr. Ross: It was a barrister who told me that, as banisters in the Committee will be aware, "he" embraces "she."

Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with—I am almost tempted to say my right hon. Friend—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who said that the worst thing that one could possibly write report is "she/he". Indeed, it was expunged from a Select Committee Report.

Mr. Ross: It is time to leave these highways and byways and proceed to the amendments, although a few minutes on preliminaries are always well spent.
I regret the usages that so offend my hon. Friend—the Tories feel like hon. Friends again after 20 years or so. It is clear, from its long title, that the Bill is somewhat restrictive. Amendment No. 9 has been tabled to correct a drafting point by replacing the phrase "Ministerial office" with "certain offices". It is necessary because of the wide range of offices addressed by various other amendments. Not all such offices are affected, but a fair number are.
Preceding debates have made it clear that the Bill to some extent is intended to avoid the conflict of interests that has so exercised the minds of many hon. Members over the past few hours. We fear that the Bill does not achieve its aim. It is very badly drafted, and has clearly been cobbled together in a hurry. The amendments are an attempt to make it more precise and tighten the wording. We want to make certain that the Government's intention is fulfilled.
Clearly, clause 2 does not meet the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann, the leader of our party and the First Minister in Northern Ireland. That is despite the fact that it was inserted into the Bill at his request, as we were told earlier. The Bill does not meet the needs of the Ulster Unionist party or the Conservative party. It is kneejerk, ill-thought-out legislation designed to please the IRA.
The proverb "act in haste and repent at leisure" is well known. If we were to ask the IRA, "Would this Bill please you?", the real answer would be yes. The Secretary of State, the Government spokesman or whoever the present contacts are—

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. As I have told the hon. Gentleman before this morning, he must confine himself to the amendments. They are, after all, his amendments.

Mr. Ross: I am trying to do that, Mr. Martin, but we have gone a long time without sleep and the way hon. Members chat in the background can be distracting.

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is asleep.

Mr. Ross: Yes, he is not speaking at the moment—although he is listening.
The Government would say to the IRA, "Of course, whatever you want, right away." They are acting in haste and will repent at leisure. I note that although the amendments tabled by the Conservative party and ourselves are not exactly the same, we were aiming at the same targets for the same reason. The amendments are precise enough to meet the case.
It is not possible to serve two masters; it is not physically possible to be in two places at once. We must make up our mind what job to do and then do it. [Interruption.] I hear it said, from a sedentary position, that it is possible to collect two salaries. I have tabled amendments to deal with that and the concept of collecting two lots of office allowance, claiming double for plane flights and car journeys and heaven knows what other dangers.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will know that the claiming of two salaries is dealt with later, when his remarks will be helpful. Perhaps he can keep his powder dry until we reach that stage.

Mr. William Ross: I was responding to a sedentary remark, and I realise that I should not have done so. I was aware that this point would arise—after all, these are my amendments. I thought about the dangers to the public purse. It is a question not only of extra salaries but of the possibility of fraud, whether inadvertent or not. We will come back to that issue later.
The amendments would clean up the Bill, making it precise and tight. They would make it clear that certain people should not be permitted to do certain jobs. The Government have already admitted that there could be a clash of interests if people held ministerial positions in two legislatures.
It is impossible to imagine that a foreign legislator could do some of the jobs that I refer to in the amendments. That said, I think that we should not allow the doors to open.
Many things are happening in Northern Ireland today that I would at one time have thought impossible. They have been tried and, even though they have not yet been very successful, some people are still hopeful. We shall see how matters develop over the next week or two. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann


(Mr. Trimble) has written his resignation. The same holds true of the president of the party and the other Ministers in the Executive. If the weapons are not given up, we will be in a difficult position relatively soon.
I am more used to pronouncing Irish place names than Irish institutions such as the Oireachtas. I fear they are beyond me and I have no particular urge to learn how to utter these words. Bearing that in mind, let me quote new clause 3, which states:
No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland (the Oireachtas) may be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons".
Under no circumstances, Mr. Martin, would I like to see a good Glasgow man like yourself replaced by a Dubliner. I prefer to be sitting under your control, Mr. Martin, or under the control of Madam Speaker, of Sir Alan and all the other hon. Members who preside over this House at one time or another. Every Member of the House would want a United Kingdom citizen to occupy that position. That is why I have tabled this extremely sensible amendment.
6.15 am
However, the Minister had the temerity to say that the Government could not accept the amendment. If we do not include this provision, sooner or later, some clown will tell us what we must do, because the European Commission of Human Rights says that it is not fair to allow one lot in without the other. That would raise the issue of hybridity; we do not want to go down that road. That is why I tabled the new clause.

Mr. Swayne: Although I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker should not be Members of a foreign Parliament, is he not introducing a new concept—that there would be Members of Parliament who have differential rights to be elected to particular offices? That is why I suggested that the hon. Gentleman might be proposing a wrecking amendment. In essence, he is saying that those people could not be real Members of the Parliament.

Mr. Ross: That is my sentiment. They would have divided loyalty, so they could not be full Members of the House; they would not be part and parcel of the whole ethos of this place. In no circumstances, would I want to see the First Commoner of England a Member of Dail Eireann, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate what I am trying to do.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be in danger of a slight contradiction, depending on which way he voted earlier on the amendment that was designed to achieve reciprocation—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We will not return to how Members voted on amendments.

Dr. Lewis: My point directly relates to that matter.

The First Deputy Chairman: I have said that it cannot relate to that matter. That is my ruling. We stick to the amendments before us.

Mr. Ross: Although I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, nor a mind reader, I have a fair idea of what the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was about to say. My response is that if an earlier amendment had been accepted—despite the doubts of some hon. Members—our view on this amendment might have changed. In those circumstances, we might have found it expedient not to move amendment No. 21. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that I am at least trying to be consistent in my efforts to improve this miserable Bill. I am trying to make it a little better by tightening it up.
From the days of King Charles and before—in trying circumstances—the Speaker has always been the protector of the rights and privileges of this place and of its Members. I should prefer to be protected by Madam Speaker than by Mr. Charlie Haughey, for example. At least, I should not have to watch my wallet if I was ill.
However, under the Bill, there would be nothing to prevent my fears from coming about. I have deep concerns; we should protect the position of the Chair. It should be reserved for a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament and for a citizen of the United Kingdom. I do not want it to go to somebody else.

Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the Government have given any reason as to why they will not accept the new clause?

Mr. Ross: The Minister has sat in lonely silence for a long time. We hope that, on this occasion, he will be tempted to get to his feet and explain why he is prepared to accept the principle of the provision, as he has already told us. It is surprising for a Minister to tell us long in advance that the Government will not accept an amendment under discussion, but that they will accept one that will be debated much later—two or three miles down the road. I always believe that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush any day of the week. The Minister is not a shooting man; he does not understand, but he will appreciate that it is always better to get what one can, when one can, from the Government and not give oneself up as a hostage to fortune.
Amendment No. 21 applies the same rule to the Northern Ireland Assembly. A Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer should not be a member of a foreign legislature. I should have thought that that was a very sensible amendment to table—unless the matter is covered elsewhere the Bill. We have not had much time to study the Bill to decide what was needed, because one never really knows what a Bill is all about until one has heard the Ministers speak at Second Reading and the detail has been teased out to some extent. Afterwards one decides what amendments to table. This time we did not have time, and it had to be done in a rush.
What I said with regard to the Speaker and Deputy Speaker applies with equal force to those who are the senior officers in the Assembly. The Minister tells us that the principle of amendment No. 7 is acceptable, but that amendment No. 14 is not acceptable. I have only a vague idea about the procedures in the Dail, but I am sure that it must have a Committee system, so the same principle should apply to the Dail.
That is the theory that underlies our amendments in the group. They are drafted fairly simply and straightforwardly. The Minister has not given us any reason, good or bad, why he will not accept them. We expect a bad reason if he is not accepting them
The Minister admitted previously that Ministers in the Dail would have a serious conflict of interests if they also served simultaneously in the Assembly or the United Kingdom Parliament. Only the surface of that iceberg has been explored. The same must be true of all the officers mentioned in our amendments. It is pointless to say "Leave it to the Assembly; leave it to the electorate" when we have seen the wheeling and dealing by Government to avoid the IRA bombing some place or shooting someone or breaking their ceasefire. Mind you, whenever people are shot—a gentleman was shot at Portadown not so long ago—we are told that the people who shot them have not broken their ceasefire. People were murdered by the IRA; we are told that the IRA has not broken its ceasefire. I presume that that is looked upon as house-keeping. That is fairly bloody house-keeping, and a murderous house-keeping. It costs people their lives and causes a great deal of misery, but the IRA is still on ceasefire.
In those circumstances, I have great difficulty in accepting what the Government say. I believe that they are wheeling and dealing and doing everything that they can to buy the IRA off, and I believe that the Bill is part of that buying off. We shall see the Royal Ulster Constabulary wrecked. We have seen the prisoners let out. We have seen the proposal to let Sinn Fein-IRA in to make use of the facilities of the House and to collect, not only their salaries but 100,000 quid to run their propaganda machine back home. We have heard all the talk about the border observation posts going. We have seen gun running and smuggling—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is definitely straying from the amendment. Even allowing for the long hours that we have worked, I cannot allow him to stray so far.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry that you take that view, Mr. Martin. I was trying to explain to the House why the Government are not accepting the amendments. There must be something in the amendments that is offensive to the IRA; otherwise, they would be accepted.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not another possibility that the Government genuinely believe in what they are doing? It is possible to believe in two contradictory views simultaneously. It is called doublethink, which was invented by George Orwell, the 50th anniversary of whose death we are marking. Does that explain why the Government can accept the principle in some amendments and reject the same principle in others?

Mr. Ross: I read Orwell as a young man and found it interesting. Ministers should go back and read his books again, as that might give them an understanding of themselves and the problems with their own thinking. I do not want to trespass on your goodwill, Mr. Martin, so I had better move on.
The Government have swallowed all of those things that I mentioned earlier, at a cost of several hundreds of millions of pounds of oil revenue alone. That has been

swallowed in an effort to keep the IRA on board. We should not pay the price that the IRA are evidently demanding. The IRA should accept the standards that normal, civilised folk accept. They should leave their thuggery, violence and threats behind. They should produce their weapons, dismantle their terrorist infrastructure, accept the rule of the Queen's law and pinpoint the bodies of the disappeared. The last point is another matter that is coming up again, although not in the Bill. However, it is relevant, as many people in Northern Ireland are concerned about it.
If the IRA left behind their embittered past and their hatred of all things British, perhaps my party might begin to treat them as a normal political party. As it is, we have to try to keep those in the IRA at arm's length to ensure that they do not get into a position where they can inflict more damage on the constitution of this country and its institutions. That is why the amendments have been tabled.

Mr. George Howarth: I am tempted to be drawn into the discussion about the works of George Orwell—simply to say that a text that the hon. Member for East Londonderry might have read sums up a little of what has taken place in the Chamber these last hours. It is "Homage to Catalonia" in which Orwell, who fought in the Spanish civil war, described the experience of trying to fight alongside the anarchists when nobody seemed to be in control. The anarchists had taken over the war and were not making a great deal of progress. I wonder whether Opposition Front Benchers might care to reflect on "Homage to Catalonia" and the lessons that they could learn from it.

Mr. Tim Boswell: The Minister will notice that I am temporarily in charge of our affairs, and it seems to me that we may be belated in our historical references. Was it not the white rabbit in "Alice in Wonderland" who had learned to believe six impossible things before breakfast? That seems to be exactly relevant to the situation in which the Committee finds itself at this hour.

Mr. Howarth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is occupying the Front Bench or has stepped through the looking glass. In any event, he should consider looking at his own reflection rather than try to cast doubt on what we are doing.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister referred earlier to the Spanish civil war. It is a subject that I have not studied; perhaps he could recommend a good book.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That can be done in the Tea Room, but certainly not here.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for East Londonderry is capable of finding his own reading material without my help.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and to his colleagues for drawing attention in the amendments to the fundamental difference between the Statutory Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Committees in the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales. They will be aware that the Statutory


Committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly are entirely different. In addition to the scrutiny role that the Committees of this House and other legislatures have, they have an important role in developing policy. They do that in partnership with Ministers, and that point is set out clearly in the Good Friday agreement and in section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
It would be right to accept in principle amendments Nos. 7 and 9 and to include within the offices of the Assembly which may not be held by the Irish Government the positions of Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Statutory Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As drafted, the amendments apply only to the proposed new section 19A(1), covering the position in which a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly is nominated to serve as the Chairman or Deputy Chairman. To have the desired effect, the proposed section 19A(2), will also require amendment to cover the situation in which a serving Chairman or Deputy Chairman becomes a Minister in the Irish Government. The Government will therefore wish to table the necessary amendment when the Bill proceeds to another place, to cover the issues raised by the two amendments before us.
I do not think that it would be right to extend the Bill to add further to the list of offices that may not be held, hypothetically, by Irish Ministers. There is, however, a fundamental difference between holding ministerial office in the Northern Ireland Executive or serving as the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of an Assembly Committee and serving as the Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer of the Assembly. While Northern Ireland Ministers and Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Committees are appointed under the d'Hondt system, the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer are elected by the Northern Ireland Assembly, which can therefore judge for itself whether any individual proposed for such an office is likely to be affected by a conflict of interest.
It is appropriate that the Assembly should have the freedom to make up its own mind, and amendment No. 21 would prevent that. Similarly, this House should have the freedom to select its own Speaker. Therefore, new clause 3 should be rejected. Amendments Nos. 14 and 18 should also be rejected. As I have said, Statutory Committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly are fundamentally different from those in other legislatures which do not have the same statutory role in the development of Government policy. It is not therefore necessary to prevent the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Committees in the legislature of Ireland from serving as Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive.

Mr. Forth: I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble in his courteous way to guide us in the debate at this relatively early stage. Having cleared the ground in our deliberations as a Committee, we are now starting to reach the meat of things. It is a relief to have got the preliminaries out of the way. I am delighted that we can now get down to the nitty-gritty—I have been waiting for this moment for some time.
The Minister was, in fact, less helpful than he might think he was. He helpfully indicated that the Government were prepared to accept at least the principle of two or three of the amendments, for which I suppose we should all be grovellingly grateful.

Mr. William Ross: We should never be grovellingly grateful to a Minister. We should be thankful for his good sense.

Mr. Forth: That is certainly a different way of looking at things. Typically, my hon. Friend is far more charitable than I feel inclined to be at this stage in the proceedings.
It is sad that the Minister resorted to the sort of argument that he has employed throughout our debates—one that is almost entirely false. I shall return to that matter later. First, I shall go carefully through the amendments and examine the different meaning and relevance of each one. The Minister acknowledged that they are all different by stating that he was sympathetic to some of them, but that he would reject others. That proved that, although the amendments are grouped, each contains principles and suggests approaches of which we should be separately aware.
The essence of clause 2 is that it makes an important distinction between those who hold political office, either elective or appointed, in the Republic of Ireland, and those who are, in their different ways, to participate in the new Northern Ireland Assembly. It is important that we have clear in our minds the lines of distinction that we wish to draw, and that we decide whether we are willing to contemplate those lines being blurred.
The thrust of much of our argument is that it is not only legitimate but essential that we maintain a clear distinction in our minds, in practice and in the Bill, between different nations, different sovereign states and different countries. It is of no consequence that those countries might share interests in the EU—that has no direct bearing on the Bill.
I do not believe that the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its various posts should be sufficient to persuade us that there should be a crossing of the boundaries that we have hitherto held to be important in distinguishing nations and their identity, and politicians and their responsibilities. We have touched on that issue in previous debates, albeit from a different angle. Now, we clearly see that the issue is whether someone who holds office in the Republic of Ireland should ever have the opportunity to hold further office, in a different capacity, in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Minister has correctly pointed out that some of the descriptions are slightly strange to us—for example, the posts of Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer. He helpfully told us that the roles of the Committees is different: Statutory Committees have both a scrutiny role and a policy development role—in partnership with Ministers, he added. Ministers of the current Government do not like to let too many sentences pass before slipping in the word "partnership". It gives them a feeling a security—it is a device to make Ministers feel that they are doing good things, that they are on-message and that everything will work out well. Partnership is a word they like to use as often as possible.
I suppose that it was innocent of the Minister on this occasion to tell us that the Statutory Committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly had not only the scrutiny role but the policy development role, in partnership with Ministers. He was at pains to say that. I have no objection to the word, but I think that it is usually fairly meaningless. The real test is whether the Committees work effectively and produce results.
Surely the important point is that the role of the Statutory Committees in combining scrutiny and policy development makes them particularly vulnerable to infiltration by politicians from an altogether different country. We must be aware of that as we pick our way through the complexities of the amendments. Time and again, we must ask ourselves how far, or whether, we believe that it is or is not compatible for politicians from the Republic of Ireland—a separate, independent country—to have the opportunity to play any role in the new arrangements that are emerging and developing in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
We have the Presiding Officer and his Deputy and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Statutory Committees, who must be the subject of our considerations. On the other side of the coin, we must consider whether different sorts of people from the Republic of Ireland are, in their different ways, able to insert themselves into the political process in part of the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 14 refers—I must use the words because they are used in the amendment—to the
Chair or Vice Chair of a Subject Committee in the legislature of Ireland.
Amendment No. 18 refers to
a Chair or Vice Chair of a subject Committee.
I find those words difficult and distasteful, but I want to remain faithful to the amendments. I shall have a quiet word with those who wrote them later about using such ghastly forms of words. However, I suppose that we know more or less what we are talking about.
The issue is whether the Committee believes that it is reasonable to expect politicians holding either legislative or executive office to be doing so simultaneously in the Republic of Ireland and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is a fairly straightforward question and I cannot understand why the Minister is unable to face it and accept the thrust of the argument.
If we want to see the Northern Ireland Assembly as a new and valid body to which people in Northern Ireland will look to reflect their new identity in the sort of world that we all want to see developing there, I have serious doubts about whether it will help the process if we allow, encourage or permit participation by political figures from a different country altogether. My argument is that it will distinctly hinder the process. In blurring these hitherto well-understood political distinctions between one country and another and their respective institutions, we are getting ourselves into some considerable dangers. The amendments are entitled to somewhat closer consideration than it would appear the Minister has been prepared to give them.
New clause 3 takes us again into different territory. It makes an explicit reference to the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, and a different argument arises. The Minister touched on a part of it, and that was a reflection of an earlier debate. He said that surely the Members of a body—the Assembly or the House of Commons—should be free to choose or to elect anyone they saw fit to hold an office such as the Presiding Officer or the Speaker, for example. That is something on which we should reflect. It is a seductive argument and it plays to our vanity that we in this place should feel secure in being able to choose anyone for those offices.
6.45 am
I exposed the Under-Secretary's fallacious argument earlier when he claimed that the electorate should be free to elect anyone they want to a body, completely ignoring the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. I won that argument and the Under-Secretary lost it comprehensively. He has not yet come to terms with that. We could take the argument forward and claim that it would be legitimate, especially in the formative stages of the new Northern Ireland Assembly, for the House, as the Assembly's creator, to protect Assembly Members, even from themselves and their potential early misjudgments, for example, in selecting a Presiding Officer. Although it is tempting to say, "Off you go, new democratic body. Do your own thing and take your own responsibility," I tentatively suggest that the Assembly is not ready for that in its initial stages. It may be incumbent on us to consider that and decide whether we have an obligation to examine those matters carefully.

Mr. Swayne: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We would fail in our duty if we did not take that opportunity. However, new clause 3 refers to the House of Commons, and would protect us from ourselves. I am not sure whether that is legitimate.

Mr. Forth: It is not always a bad thing. Perhaps members of the Committee, with their combined sagacity, should protect our colleagues who have not seen fit to participate in the debate as fully as some of us. We have taken the trouble to examine the Bill and digest its contents. It may surprise my hon. Friend to realise that we took the new clause more seriously than he thought at first blush.
The new clause develops a theme introduced in other amendments. It would ensure that
No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland ֵ may be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker
here. That makes the large assumption that such a person would be elected here in the first place. Unfortunately, so far, we must take that as read.

Mr. Chope: The current Prime Minister views the selection of the Speaker of the House of Commons as within his powers of patronage.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot discuss those matters.

Mr. Forth: Certainly not, Mr. Martin. It is tempting to try to protect ourselves from the Prime Minister, but he is here so rarely that I do not worry about his influence on the selection of the Speaker or any other matter to do with the House of Commons. That is one of the benefits of the Prime Minister's almost complete absence from the Chamber. My hon. Friend can rest assured on that point.
We have to make a judgment about how far it is proper and profitable in the context of the Bill and the amendments to try to protect perhaps even ourselves, and whether we should provide some assurance or protection to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is still very new. Its existence is, regrettably, a matter for doubt and speculation.
Given the uncertainties that I have outlined, there is a strong argument for saying that we are obliged to provide as much of a framework, and as much assurance and proper protection as we can to the Assembly. That applies especially as the role of the new Committees, Presiding Officers, Chairmen and Vice Chairmen has yet to develop, as the Under-Secretary helpfully told us. We do not have a full idea of them at this stage because the Assembly is new. I include even ghastly mechanisms such as d'Hondt, which roll off ministerial lips so readily. The Government are ever so familiar and comfortable with our old friend d'Hondt—even though the Home Secretary can barely mention the name without giggling. On that, I am more with the Home Secretary than with some other Ministers. The Under-Secretary of State is obviously a sophisticated and urbane man who is used to moving in European circles. He uses words such as "d'Hondt" with great aplomb. I would not be surprised if he even knew how d'Hondt works. That is one reason why the amendments are so important.
Given the novelty of all the processes, procedures and institutions, it is incumbent on us to do everything possible to provide proper protection. I am much in favour of all the proposed measures. The Minister helpfully intervened early in the debate to give his view, but he has yet to hear the full panoply of our arguments. I am just providing a taster of the arguments that my right hon. Friends might want to deploy.
I hope that the Minister will think again in the light of our arguments. I was disappointed that he only went so far as saying, "We might accept the principle of one or two amendments and give the usual undertaking about returning to the question at another time, in another place." The Committee must decide whether it is satisfied with that response.
Although we may trust the Minister totally, it cannot be guaranteed that he will be in full control when the proposals go to the other place. Given the turmoil at the other end of this building, nothing can be guaranteed. A ministerial undertaking that something will be sorted in another place, given recent encouraging events there, is no guarantee. It may be that Governments could make such a guarantee in the good old days, but they cannot any more. I am happy to report that, under the allegedly temporary dispensation, the Government, it appears, cannot rely on delivering anything in another place. That makes us feel doubly nervous and suspicious of what the Minister has said, rather than reassured.
I am looking for something very different from the Minister at the conclusion of this debate. I want him explicitly to accept at least two of the amendments—and preferably to accept them all, for the reasons I have outlined.

Mr. Chope: I follow my right hon. Friend in discussing new clause 3, which is the most important of the new clauses and amendments in this group. The independence of our Speaker and the Speaker's role under our unwritten constitution are fundamental to our understanding of the importance of the proposed new clause.
In the first constituency that I represented—Southampton, Itchen—I was fortunate to follow in the footsteps of a distinguished former Speaker, Horace

Maybray-King. He was originally a Labour Member of Parliament for Southampton, Itchen, but, as soon as he became Speaker, he stood as an independent. The prospective Conservative candidate was not permitted to stand against Horace Maybray-King because the convention is that a Speaker should be allowed to stand as an independent and be elected.
Maybray-King was still alive when I was elected in 1983. I remember him impressing upon a group of my Young Conservatives the important role of the Speaker in defending our rights under the constitution. He had been a Labour man originally, but was then an independent because he had assumed a new role. To reinforce his independence, we even passed a special Act of Parliament to provide a pension, not only for his first wife, but for his last wife—he certainly enjoyed the company of women. When he visited my Young Conservatives he was given a lift by the lady president and his first question to her was whether her husband was still alive. His reputation was such, but he commanded tremendous respect as an independent upholder of the traditions of the House.

Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend think that Horace King would have been happy in the Labour party under the new Labour regime? Would he have wanted to remain in the Labour party or become an independent?

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have a biography of Horace King this morning. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to him, which is fine, but we must discuss the amendment.

Mr. Chope: Absolutely, Mr. Martin. In deploying my argument in support of the significance of our unwritten constitution and the office of Speaker, I refer to a lesson I was taught by another distinguished former Member of the House, the late Enoch Powell. I had the privilege of serving with him on the Procedure Committee in 1983–84. The first thing that he impressed on me was that, in the absence of a written constitution, the procedures of the House are our constitution. They are the ultimate bulwark that defends our liberties and protects us from oppression. The constitutional position is very different from that of a Speaker of a Parliament in a country with a written constitution. In the present circumstances, Madam Speaker is the ultimate arbiter on procedure, so it is of paramount importance that she is independent and seen to be independent.

Sir Michael Spicer: Is not great force added to my hon. Friend's argument about the importance of the Speaker by the fact that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill is currently going through the House and will give the Speaker enormous new powers to control the referendum process. Would not it be extraordinary if those powers were given to some foreigner?

Mr. Chope: I must be careful about using the word "foreigner", because it might be misinterpreted, but it would be unconscionable if those powers were given to a member of the legislature of another country. That is what the amendment is about and we must face up to that problem. We expect our Speaker to be independent and


to give up all party-political positions in our legislature, but if the Speaker was also a member of a foreign legislature, he or she would fulfil a party-political role in it. Even if such a person's role was not party political, a conflict of interest would be seen to be involved.
The great European debate has already been referred to, as has the fact that Ireland is a net recipient of aid from taxpayers while this country is a gross donor of aid to other European countries, including Ireland. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is frequently debated in the House. How could we be assured of the impartiality of the Speaker if that person fulfilled a representative role in a country that was not a member of NATO, while purportedly being an independent defender of our liberties in this country? It would be intolerable. Why will the Minister not accept the new clause? The only reason he gives is that he believes that Members of the House of Commons should have the freedom to choose.

7 am

Mr. Robathan: Can my hon. Friend enlighten us on the tradition in the Irish Parliament for the behaviour of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, so that we may understand what sort of behaviour to expect from a Speaker or Deputy Speaker who is also a Member of the Irish Parliament?

Mr. Chope: Not only have I not visited the Irish Parliament; I have never visited southern Ireland, so it would be difficult for me to speculate about the behaviour of individual Members of Parliament within the Irish legislature, let alone the Speaker.
I should like to develop my argument. I think that you, Mr. Martin, commented on this matter when I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We now have a situation in which the Prime Minister has more patronage than he has ever enjoyed before. It has been a traditional right of the House of Commons to elect its Speaker on the basis that each Member of Parliament makes a private, individual choice, irrespective of the wishes of the Government or Opposition Whips. But rumours are rife, particularly speculation that Madam Speaker may be thinking about retiring and that, for example, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) may be put up and supported by the Prime Minister as part of a deal.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot stray into that matter. It has nothing to do with the amendment, and he should not speak about it. I will rule him out of order if he continues.

Mr. Chope: Perhaps I may explain that I am not seeking to widen the debate too far. What I am seeking to do is to point out that there is the perception at the moment that the Executive has a role, and seeks to have a role, in the election of the Speaker.

The First Deputy Chairman: That has nothing to do with the amendment. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and he will not discuss that matter.

Mr. Chope: The reason why there is some relevance in my submission is that the Minister says that the House should have the freedom to choose. In supporting new clause 3, I am arguing that there should be a legislative bar on any member of a foreign Parliament standing as a candidate for Speaker of the House of Commons. The Minister asks us to trust the House, but it is relevant to point out that it is hard to accept that the Executive does not seek to participate in the process for election of the Speaker.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with new clause 3, which says:
No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland…may be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons".
It has nothing to do with the process of electing a Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman should not stray into that matter. I told him that I will rule him out of order if he does so. If he wishes to continue, he will make no mention of the matter that he has already discussed.

Mr. Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I seek your guidance on a matter that is troubling me, in view of the turn that events seem to be taking. It is now five minutes past 7. I am very interested in this debate, and may wish to take part in it later this morning. However, under the new dispensation, a debate in Westminster Hall will start at 9.30, and I hope to take part in that as well. Obviously, I shall have difficulty in being in two places at the same time. There is an additional difficulty: as I understand it, as far as this debate is concerned, we are still in Tuesday, whereas the debate in Westminster Hall is taking place on Wednesday, and I shall have difficulty in taking part in a debate on Tuesday and Wednesday. May I have your guidance, Mr. Martin, as I do not think that such a situation has arisen before?

The First Deputy Chairman: The Chairman of Ways and Means made the position clear in regard to Westminster Hall. There are precedents.

Mr. Chope: New clause 3 would prevent the Executive of the United Kingdom from being in a position to do a deal with the Government of Ireland that would involve the election of a Member of the Irish Parliament to the post of Speaker of this House of Commons. I want to guard against that hypothetical situation, which is why I support so enthusiastically new clause 3, which I think goes to the very root of our constitution.

Mr. Swayne: The assurances given by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have been more believable had he arranged our affairs so that we might have a Report stage. In that event, they might have been given some credulity, but the vague offer the Minister gave us about another place I found unsustainable.
I support entirely the practical objectives enunciated by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), but I differ in my estimate of the impact of the amendments. I am profoundly at odds with my hon. Friend the Member


for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in my estimate of the impact of new clause 3. I believe that the new clause is a wrecking amendment in every sense of the term. It wrecks the principle of the Bill, and it wrecks this Chamber. Wrecking the principle of the Bill might have a certain attraction, but the principle of the Bill is that Members of another Parliament might serve in this sovereign Parliament.
I believe that new clause 3 offends against that, because in effect it says that those Members of this Parliament are not real Members of this Parliament. It introduces into this Parliament a concept that all Members are not equal—that they do not all have the same rights. They do not all at least aspire to the possibility of being elected Speaker.
I remember, in the last Session, having a debate that introduced precisely such a concept. There was a suggestion on these Benches—I mention this only in passing—that Members with Scottish seats should not vote on certain issues. Many Members reacted to that with horror and there was unease on the part of some of my hon. Friends. We did not like the prospect of introducing the concept of Members who had different rights. We are all equal Members of Parliament.
I therefore caution Members who are enthusiastic about new clause 3 that they are introducing a novel and unwelcome concept. I entirely understand their motive. The motive of protecting the office of Speaker from being held by a member of a foreign Parliament is an entirely worthy objective, although I see no practical possibility of that happening. I therefore do not think that we should pollute our constitutional theory in an obscure attempt to prevent it.
I am sure that the principle that I have enunciated applies, at least in some respects, to the other amendments. Chairmanships of subject committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly would probably benefit from the same principle. I am sure that any Member of such an Assembly should be able, by virtue of being a Back Bencher, to hold the office of Chairman of a subject committee. Therefore, to reintroduce a distinction between Members of Parliament is entirely invidious. We have before us an offensive Bill with an offensive principle, but we should not pollute our Parliament and arrangements in trying to work around that principle.

Mr. Robathan: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said. He is arguing strongly against the new clause. I point out further that the new clause is defective because, although it will not allow a Member of the Irish Parliament to be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker, it will perversely—it is a great defect—allow the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, having been elected here, to become a member of the Irish legislature.

Mr. Swayne: I am not sure that it would. My hon. Friend is harking back to amendments on reciprocity, which would have been necessary to satisfy that condition. I will not be led down that road because I am sure that it would not be conducive.

Mr. Robathan: No, it has nothing to do with reciprocity. It is entirely within the new clause, which says:

No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland…may be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker",
but it does not say that the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons might not then become a member of Ireland's legislature.

Mr. Swayne: That is true, but, as it is not possible for a member of the UK legislature to become a member of the legislature in Ireland, the possibility does not arise. Therefore, that is not a legitimate concern.
I have exhausted what I wanted to say. I simply offer a word of caution. I support the practical intent of the new clause, but the theory is abominable.

Mr. Roger Gale: I know, Mr. Martin, that in your other capacity as Deputy Speaker in the House, you take the independence of the Speakership and Deputy Speakerships seriously. It will not surprise you to know that those of us who, in a minor capacity, have the duty and privilege to chair some of the House's proceedings regard the independence and impartiality of the role of Chairman equally seriously.
I wish to be brief, but I want to raise an important point. To some extent, it reinforces the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
As new clause 2 stands, a Minister or junior Minister ceases to hold office on becoming a Minister of the Government of Ireland, but the Speaker of the House does not, as I understand it, hold an office under the Crown. The Speaker is appointed by the House of Commons. Therefore, as things stand—I ask the Minister to address the issue seriously—clause 2 will require a Minister to resign if he or she becomes a Minister in the Government of Ireland, but it cannot require a Speaker of the House who happens to be an Irish Member to resign as Speaker, if he or she also becomes a Minister in the Government of Ireland.
Ministers in the Government of Ireland are, properly, partisan. They are appointed by political parties. It is very unlikely, but not inconceivable, that the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is non-partisan, as tradition properly has it, could become a partisan Minister in another Government. Conversely, a partisan Minister, properly appointed, of another Government could be elected, gerrymandered in or appointed as Speaker of the House of Commons. That cannot be right. You in your role, Mr. Martin, and I occasionally in mine, surely cannot accept the concept that we have someone who has one foot in a partisan camp, but another in a non-partisan camp.
7.15 am
We come now—it is the thrust of my argument—to new clause 3, which, if passed, would obviate that situation. The new clause would simply state, "You cannot do it." Superficially, that solution is very attractive, as it would get rid of the problem. The new clause would ensure that the type of situation that I have just described—in which a partisan person has simultaneously to be a non-partisan person, wearing only half a hat—could not develop.
As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said, if we go down that road, we shall immediately create two classes of hon. Member: one class of people who can be selected and elected by their peers to become the holders of what all hon. Members regard as one of the most dignified and prestigious offices of the land—the Speakership of the House; and another class of people who, although they sit on these same green Benches and are properly elected by an electorate who are allowed, under the Bill, to elect them, cannot hold that office. Are we seriously saying that we shall legislate to create a situation in which that is possible, even in theory? It cannot be right.
We cannot have two groups of hon. Member, so that Members in one group are able to become Speaker, whereas Members in the other are not. We cannot have more than one class of Member—one of which is able to hold office only in this place—or of Minister, one of which would have to resign if he or she became a Minister in another Parliament. In another group, those who hold an office that is not an office under the Crown, but who are appointed by the House of Commons, would be able not only to occupy the Chair, but, simultaneously, to sit as a partisan Minister in another Parliament.
The provision is absolute nonsense, and the House cannot let it pass. When we vote on clause 2 stand part, I shall have to vote against it on principle alone.

Mr. William Ross: I had not realised that we would run out of speakers to the amendment so quickly, but I have been thinking seriously about some of the comments made earlier by the Minister. Various questions remain unanswered.
I do not know how on earth we could go along with the idea that the office of Chair or Vice-Chair could be held by a person who is also a Minister. Currently, the legislation would make that possible. It would be quite wrong to have someone serve both as Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a Committee and as a Minister. I do not know how on earth that could be acceptable to anyone. The Minister gave his views on the matter, but he did not convince me that his views were reasonable.
The Minister is also refusing to accept a reasonable proposal preventing the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer from serving as a Minister. I do not know how on earth we could allow them to serve as a Minister. Although those Members, as Presiding Officer and Deputy, would have their own particular role to play and very considerable centralising powers, we are being told that they should also be able to hold down a ministerial post. Allowing them to do both would, among other things, upset the balance.
The person serving both as the Chair or Vice-Chair and as a Minister would upset the balance under the d'Hondt system. If we were to allow it, it would cause grave problems. The Minister said that the matter is for the parties to decide for themselves. However, considerations of political advantage may play a role in a decision on making a Minister the Chair or Vice-Chair. The same would be true of the posts of Presiding Officer and Deputy. It would certainly reduce the number of posts. There is no need for 12 Ministers in Northern Ireland. I see no good reason to go down that road. The Minister will have to give much better reasons for refusing the amendment than he has done so far.
Clause 2 provides that a Minister in the Irish Republic cannot take up a similar post in the Northern Ireland Assembly, although a junior Minister can. Such junior Ministers are not banned at all, unless the word "Minister" is a generic term covering all levels of ministries in Dublin. However, that cannot be the case, because the term "junior Minister" appears elsewhere in the Bill. If it appears in one place, there is no reason why it should not appear in another.
We must not allow junior Ministers in the Irish Republic to become Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The evils that would follow from that have been touched on in earlier debates. I can assure hon. Members who have just arrived and are no doubt amazed to see us that we are still here only because the Bill is so illogical that it could never be accepted by Northern Ireland Members, or by Conservative Members.
We must not allow the Minister to leave without telling us why the Government are not preventing junior Ministers in Dublin from being Ministers in Northern Ireland. That would lead to a form of joint rule, control and authority in Northern Ireland which would be anathema to the Unionist population there. If such a possibility were permitted even to appear on the face of the Bill it would have serious consequences for the process of establishing and maintaining a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. It could also upset the IRA surrender policy that the Government have pursued so assiduously, and have the most serious consequences for the lives and liberties of people in Northern Ireland.
The potential for joint control could also be used by the Government of the Irish Republic to damage the economy of Northern Ireland, and to impose their standards on matters such as abortion and divorce. It could be used by the Irish Government to impose the Irish language on us even more than at present. It could also cause mayhem in the cross-border bodies.
For example, a junior agriculture Minister in the Republic could become a Minister with similar responsibilities in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He could do a huge amount of mischief. The same possibility would open up if the junior Minister so elected had responsibility for finance and taxation and decided that it would be a good idea to change the tax on fuel oil in Northern Ireland to the same levels as applied in the Republic. That would cause a deliberately fomented clash between central Government in London and the Assembly in Northern Ireland. Moreover, the same individual might decide to bring the vehicle excise duty into line with that in the Irish Republic.
Those two latter points would, of course, have been widely welcomed by people in Northern Ireland since they think that tax, fuel and vehicle excise duty costs are far too high. They would ask themselves, "Why should we not reap the benefits of this?" In pursuing that populist course, the Minister would be driving a wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Those items are a result of the Government's failure to deal adequately with the problem. I am curious as to why they decided not to accept the very sensible amendments in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, which were supported by the Conservative spokesmen. I cannot for the life of me work out why amendments Nos. 12 and 17, on junior Ministers, were not called. The wording is much the same in many of the amendments, and someone may


have become confused and decided that the same issue was being described in two different ways. That is not so, as a quick look at the amendment paper will reveal. The amendment was very different; it was aimed directly at junior Ministers. One way or another it will be appreciated that I have a number of concerns that have not been dealt with adequately.
I had to leave the Chamber for a short time for a bite to eat. It is a very long time since I had my supper, and it is breakfast time now. So I went off and satisfied the inner man and, as a consequence, missed a valuable contribution that may well have addressed these matters. I deeply regret that, and am grateful to those who have been expressing concerns while I was absent from the Chamber. I am back now, and I hope that the Minister is prepared to take my remarks on board.

Mr. Swayne: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, will he address the concern arising from new clause 3? While the objective of the new clause was agreed to, there was a belief, certainly on my part, that it would introduce the principle of two classes of Member in this Chamber, which is not acceptable.

Mr. Ross: That is perfectly correct; I indicated earlier that the element of having two classes might make the Bill hybrid, although I am not sure. Hybridity is difficult to define, but I understand that experts recognise it as soon as they see it. It is like seeing one's wife, mother or father a long distance away; we glance at them and know who they are but if we had to describe them we could not. Hybridity, while recognisable, is difficult for the layman—like me—to define.

Mr. Gale: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was briefly absent from the Chamber while we were discussing this. Is the Bill not already hybrid, in the sense that clause 2(2) creates a situation in which the Speaker of the House of Commons could be an office holder, and therefore partisan, in another House?

Mr. Ross: That is the difficulty. One of the Deputy Speakers concluded earlier that that was not the case. However, if he were to consider the points that have been raised since he made that decision, he might be in time to change his mind. I hope to have a chance, later in the day, to examine the issue more closely to see whether there is a danger of hybridity. The Bill would then have to go through the peculiar procedure necessary for that type of Bill. There would have to be a Joint Committee of both Houses. The matter raises an interesting question.
7.30 am
However, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was more concerned that there would be two classes of person in the House. One group would be eligible for the office of Speaker or Deputy Speaker, but the other would not. There would be two different classes in any case, as some individuals would also be members of another legislature. They would have duties, concerns and responsibilities in that regard which would inhibit their capacity fully to perform their duties in this place.
That would give rise to a grave difficulty. Indeed, that difficulty springs from the intention of the Bill to allow outsiders to become Members of the House while they are members of another legislature. That is a basic flaw in the Bill and we should acknowledge it.
The Bill has great flaws. The Minister has not satisfied hon. Members—he certainly has not satisfied me—by what he said earlier. He has not adequately explained why it is possible for the Government to accept amendments Nos. 7 and 9, but not to accept other amendments, even though they are similar. He has given an extremely inadequate explanation as to why he refuses to accept amendments Nos. 14 and 18.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause, because it demonstrates the absurdity of the Bill. Was that why he tabled it?

Mr. Ross: I thought that the Bill was absurd, that it fell far short in the expertise of its drafting, and that it fell below the philosophical standards to which we are accustomed. However, I realise that the Government have a huge majority. In Northern Ireland, we have the word "thrawn"; it means being awkward for the sake of it. That describes the attitude of the Government. They have a huge majority; their followers expect to be able to sweep every measure through the House, so the Government have become careless.
The Bill is careless and badly drafted; it fulfils no useful purpose. As it is wrong and the Government are intent on putting it through, we should try to improve it.

Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Member has been a Member of the House for many a year. Does he believe that the Bill would have been presented in this form, if, for example, Walter Harrison or Michael Cocks had still been Whips?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) should not answer that question; he should return to the amendment.

Mr. Ross: Fond as my memories are of the two gentlemen in question when they were Members of the House, I will not follow up the question put by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), other than to point out that if Mr. Harrison were still a Whip, there would not be so few Labour Members in the Committee—they would all be here. They would all have to answer to him—heaven help them if they were missing.
I am sure, Mr. Lord, that you recall Mr. Harrison as well as I do. He was a most remarkable man. I found him most congenial, but of course he was not my Whip. I got on well with him. He was a man of high moral and religious standards, having—

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now doing precisely what I asked him not to do. Will he please address the amendment?

Mr. Ross: Of course, Mr. Lord. However, I hate to leave the subject of Mr. Harrison because I had such high


regard for him. We all like to remember our departed friends—departed only from the House, not in any other sense.
The Bill is a bad one. We have endeavoured to improve it with these amendments and others. The Government know that all the amendments are perfectly acceptable, but they cannot admit that they got it so wrong. It is only because they are forced by logic—a rare matter in government—to admit that the principle behind two of the amendments would improve the Bill that they are prepared to accept them. They therefore want to accept them, but they are not prepared to accept the same principle in regard to the other amendments. We heard the very weak argument that the Minister made against these sensible amendments.
I believe that the Minister should reconsider and I should be grateful, Mr. Lord, if you would advise me, because I need some advice. As you say, I have been in the House for a long time. However, as I have not been a member of one of the main parties, it has not been my responsibility to ask questions of the Chair and to discover how these different amendments will be dealt with. As has been said, the Government accept the principle underlying amendments Nos. 7 and 9. Will they accept those two amendments as they stand? If they accept those, does it mean that we must have a series of Divisions on them? What is the position regarding amendments Nos. 21, 14 and 18 and new clause 3? May we have separate Divisions on those amendments? I should be grateful if you would let me know how it is proposed to deal with this matter.

The Second Deputy Chairman: As the hon. Gentleman has said, he has been a Member of the House for a long time. He therefore knows exactly how we deal with these amendments. He should address his amendments, not the procedures of the House.

Mr. Ross: The problem is, Mr. Lord, that the procedures of the House will determine whether we can have a separate Division on each amendment, so I am just serving notice that we want separate Divisions on them.
There is also the question of amendments Nos. 7 and 9. I want to know whether the Minister is prepared to accept the wording of those two amendments, or whether he will go away, think about them and come back with a different wording at a later stage—either by tabling a manuscript amendment on Report, or by taking care of the matter in another place.
There is much more that one could say on these matters, but I think that, in these few minutes, I have addressed the thing as best I can. I would leave it there, and I should be grateful if the Minister replied.

Mr. George Howarth: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as I always do, and he has not asked me to cover any ground that I have not covered already or that, as in the case of hybridity, has not been ruled on by the Chair. Fascinating though some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises are, I would be in danger of tedious repetition if I discussed them and, mindful as I am of the previous strictures from the Chair, I do not intend to do so. With the assurances that I have given on amendments

Nos. 7 and 9, which the hon Gentleman is well aware of, I would recommend the the Committee oppose these amendments.

Mr. Gale: I am sorry, Mr. Lord; I was hoping to catch the Minister before he sat down. I should like to ask him two absolutely straight questions, to which there are yes and no answers. One: is the Speaker of the House of Commons the holder of an office under the Crown—yes or no? Two: if not, is it, under the Bill, technically possible for the Speaker of the House of Commons to be a Minister in another Parliament—yes or no? If so, we could not possibly support clause 2.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the answers to his questions. He has checked the matter out. I will not be involved in any games that he might be playing. The Speaker of the House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows—I recall that he is a member of the Chairmen's Panel—is elected by the House and the House alone. When the Bill comes into force, technically speaking, the Speaker of the House could serve in another legislature and could, technically, hold office in that legislature, but I think that any Speaker who contemplated taking such action might find it difficult to gain the support of the House.

Mr. Gale: Forgive me, Mr. Lord, but I do not know of any procedure—you will correct me if I am wrong—for removing a Speaker from office during their holding of that office, and if, as we have now agreed, the Speaker is not a Minister under the Crown, the Speakership is not covered by clause 2(2). That must be nonsense, because it means that the Speaker could hold a non-partisan office and a partisan office simultaneously.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 33, Noes 202.

Division No. 45]
[7:40 am


AYES



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beggs, Roy
Loughton, Tim


Bercow, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Maginnis, Ken


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Oaten, Mark


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Randall, John


Chope, Christopher
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Clappison, James
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Sayeed, Jonathan


Collins, Tim
Spicer, Sir Michael


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Swayne, Desmond


Gale, Roger
Syms, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Key, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mr. Eric Forth and


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. William Thompson


NOES



Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisle N)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Alexander, Douglas
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Atkins, Charlotte
Berry, Roger


Barnes, Harry
Best, Harold


Battle, John
Blears, Ms Hazel






Blizzard, Bob
Jamieson, David


Borrow, David
Jenkins, Brian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Bradshaw, Ben
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Browne, Desmond
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Burgon, Colin
Keeble, Ms Sally


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Kemp, Fraser


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Kidney, David


Caplin, Ivor
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cawsey, Ian
Laxton, Bob


Chapman, Ben (WirralS)
Lepper, David


Clapham, Michael
Leslie, Christopher


Clark, Dr Lynda
Levitt, Tom


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Linton, Martin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Lock, David


Clelland, David
Love, Andrew


Coaker, Vernon
McAvoy, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
McCabe, Steve


Coleman, Iain
Macdonald, Calum


Colman, Tony
McDonnell, John


Connarty, Michael
McFall, John


Corston, Jean
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Cousins, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Cranston, Ross
Mackinlay, Andrew


Crausby, David
McNulty, Tony


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Cummings, John
McWalter, Tony


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Mallaber, Judy


Dalyell, Tam
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Marshall, David (Shetteston)


Davidson, Ian
Martlew, Eric


Dawson, Hilton
Merron, Gillian


Dean, Mrs Janet
Miller, Andrew


Dobbin, Jim
Moffatt, Laura


Donohoe, Brian H
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Doran, Frank
Moran, Ms Margaret


Dowd, Jim
Morley, Elliot


Efford, Clive
Mountford, Kali


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Ennis, Jeff
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Fisher, Mark
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Flint, Caroline
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Palmer, Dr Nick


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Pearson, Ian


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Perham, Ms Linda


Gapes, Mike
Pickthall, Colin


Gardiner, Barry
Pike, Peter L


Gerard, Neil
Plaskitt, James


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Pollard, Kerry


Goggins, Paul
Pope, Greg


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pound, Stephen


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Grogan, John
Prosser, Gwyn


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Purchase, Ken


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Quinn, Lawrie


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rammell, Bill


Healey, John
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Rooney, Terry


Hepburn, Stephen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hinchliffe, David
Ruddock, Joan


Hope, Phil
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Sawford, Phil


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Shaw, Jonathan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Lindsay
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)
Singh, Marsha


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Skinner, Dennis


Iddon, Dr Brian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Soley, Clive





Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Spellar, John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tynan, Bill


Steinberg, Gerry
Walley, Ms Joan


Stevenson, George
Ward, Ms Claire


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wareing, Robert N


Stinchcombe, Paul
Watts, David


Stringer, Graham
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wills, Michael


Taylor, David (NWLeics)
Winnick, David


Temple—Morris, Peter
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wood, Mike


Tipping, Paddy
Woolas, Phil


Todd, Mark
Worthington, Tony


Touhig, Don
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Trickett, Jon
Tellers for the Noes:


Truswell, Paul
Mr. Mike Hall and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. William Ross: Mr. Lord, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 7, 14, 18 and 9, but to move new clause 3 separately as it deals with an entirely different matter. The new clause deals with the Speaker, you and your colleagues in this House, and you are of far more importance than any of the subjects covered by the other amendments.

The Second Deputy Chairman: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw the amendments. As for the new clause, we have had a wide ranging debate and I am satisfied that there is no justification for calling any more separate votes.

Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
'or a member of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 1, line 18, at end add—
'or a member of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland'.
No. 33, in title line 7, after 'Government', insert—
'or members of the legislature'.
No. 5, in title line 7, at end insert—
'or members of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland'.

Mr. Forth: The amendment takes us into a completely new subject. We can put behind us the debates of the past few hours and march boldly into new territory, which is both deliberate and proper. Until now, we have been considering in some, although not excessive, detail the relationship between the Executive of other Parliaments and the institutions of the United Kingdom, especially


those of Northern Ireland. However, I want to extend the logic of that argument to encompass Members of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for not having raised this matter before he started to speak.
Mr. Lord, I do not believe that you were in the Chair about an hour ago, when I raised the issue of this morning's sitting in Westminster Hall. My question about the fate of that sitting was satisfactorily resolved at that time. The guidance that I was given—that the Westminster Hall sitting would proceed, even though the Committee of the whole House continued to sit—was helpful to me as one who is interested in this morning's proceedings in both Westminster Hall and the Chamber. However, a further issue has since occurred to me, Mr. Lord, on which I seek your guidance. What will the position be if a Division is called in the Chamber and the sitting at Westminster Hall is proceeding? Will the Westminster Hall sitting be suspended?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I can deal with that quite quickly. That will be a matter for the Deputy Speaker at Westminster Hall at the time.

Mr. Forth: I am advancing an argument that is exactly parallel to the argument about whether it was legitimate, valuable and acceptable for members of the executive branch of government in another country to be able to participate either in the House of Commons or in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The parallel argument must now be raised in relation to Members of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland and their eligibility for this place or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I concede that, in some ways, the arguments are rather different because there is a difference in kind between the Executive and the legislature, but I want to advance the case that arguments about conflicts of interest are equally legitimate, as are the arguments about the demands of time and of place. As we know, it is impossible for a person to be in two places at once. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) illustrated that in his point of order. The fact that he cannot be in Westminster Hall and in the Chamber simultaneously neatly illustrates in a timely way how much more difficult it would be for any hon. Member to serve in the legislature of the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly or the House of Commons at the same time.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is even more difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), given that it is Tuesday in the Chamber and Wednesday in Westminster Hall?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend may not believe this, but we have had rulings that there is no problem with that. We have a bifurcation of time in this legislature. It appears that the occupants of the Chair are comfortable with the fact that it is one day in the Chamber and a completely different day in Westminster Hall, which is a few hundred yards away. I have an intellectual difficulty with that concept. My hon. Friend, who is much more

intellectually gymnastic than I am, may be comfortable with the concept of two separate time zones in one building.

Mr. Taylor: There is no problem, but can my right hon. Friend tell me where the date line is?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I would be grateful if we could return to the amendment that is being moved by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and not continue to deal with matters in Westminster Hall, which the Chair has already dealt with.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Lord. You will have to forgive my disorientation, which is obviously natural following that short exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I shall do my best to gather my thoughts quickly.
The argument is essentially about whether our debates about the executive branch and the legislature in different countries can be comfortably and credibly carried forward to a similar argument involving different legislatures. That is the thrust of the amendment.
It is patently the case that there is a real difficulty in terms of Members doing justice to their duties in the legislature as well as doing justice to those whom they represent in an elected sense. However, how much more is there a problem with a potential conflict of interest? Knowing as we do the wide variety of matters that are dealt with in the natural course of events in legislative bodies—I include the Northern Ireland Assembly in a broad definition of a legislative body, and I hope that the Committee and the Minister will accept that for the sake of the argument—how much more is it possible that there will be almost daily contradictions and conflicts between matters being dealt with in the legislature of the Republic on the one hand and by the Northern Ireland Assembly on the other? That would certainly apply to the House of Commons.

8 am

Mr. Sayeed: It is a matter not simply of legislatures, but of different constituencies. Let us suppose that my right hon. Friend was Member of Parliament for an English constituency and an Irish constituency, and both constituencies were bidding for investment from the same company. He would have to speak for both constituencies. That would be absurd.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has anticipated my line of argument, but I am grateful to him because he has brought into sharp focus the point that I wanted to make. He illustrated the inherent conflict of interest that must exist when the same person tries to be a representative in two different legislative or deliberative bodies.
That problem would arise not only in the particular circumstances that my hon. Friend outlined, but in a range of others, especially if the legislative bodies considered international conflicts or, if both legislatures were members of the European Union, ways of dealing with European law. Genuine difficulties emerge when we consider the concept of elected Members simultaneously serving in two legislative or deliberative bodies in two separate sovereign states.
The Government have a problem in getting to grips with the difficulties. We have already found it difficult to persuade the Under-Secretary that it is legitimate for a law-making body such as the House to try to identify people who may be disqualified from standing for elective office. I have had a running debate about that with Ministers throughout our proceedings. Ministers have claimed time and again that we must allow the voters to decide. I replied time and again that the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 identifies groups of people who may not serve in the House of Commons for legitimate reasons. Those groups include civil servants, members of the judiciary and the armed forces. The principle that it is our duty properly to restrict the sort of people who may be eligible to stand for election to a legislative or deliberative body is therefore long established.
Even if I cannot persuade Ministers of the existence of that well-entrenched body of law, or persuade the Under-Secretary to tell me whether he intends to repeal it, we have established the argument that it is the Committee's proper responsibility to consider whether one person can properly make decisions in more than one legislative body. My answer to that is no. The reason was shown by the specific example that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) gave.
I do not want to weary the Committee with a long list of examples, although it would be easy to do that. However, we can all imagine cases in which those who served in the legislative assembly of the Republic of Ireland and in the House of Commons would quickly find themselves in an impossible position—physically, temperamentally, in terms of policy and, above all, loyalty. Hon. Members who wanted to take their seats in the House of Commons would have to swear the Oath of Allegiance. I am told that there is no parallel oath in the legislature of the Republic of Ireland, but there is something with similar force. Any Member who sought to represent voters in two different legislative bodies—

Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Forth: Yes.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted two important elements. The procedures and rules of the two establishments would be totally different. In the short debate on the last group of amendments, we discussed whether there could be a series of votes or only one vote. I have been in the House a long time, but I am not totally clear about that the present rules. The rules change and someone who is absent for a month or two could return to the House and be caught flat footed—as I was this morning.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is more right than even he knows. When I was in the European Parliament many years ago, I served on the rules and procedure committee. That body's rules were in developmental mode at the time, but it had a slim body of rules that served as our bible and worked well. By coincidence, I was recently appointed to the Procedure Committee so I am aware of

the problem. It is made worse by the Government changing the rules of almost everything in the name of modernisation. I have not quite got to grips with how that benefits the House, but there is a fetish among most Government Members for doing almost anything that wrecks our traditions and long-standing practices in the name of modernisation.
I am sure that that phase will pass, but it is particularly tiresome because familiarity with the rules and environment is important to the effectiveness of the House collectively and of individual Members. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, my effectiveness as a Member of the House depends to a large extent on my familiarity with the way the House works, its written rules, ambience, customs and traditions. It would be difficult to shuffle between two completely different legislative bodies that would almost certainly take a different approach to most things. One example is the seating arrangement in this Chamber compared with the ghastly hemicycles that are adopted more and more in a pseudo-continental sense. Something as simple as that can be very disorientating to legislators who want to concentrate on the subject matter rather than worry about the seating configuration. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.
It is difficult enough for right hon. and hon. Members fully to discharge all their responsibilities to their electorates in terms of balancing constituency work with work in the House and so on. How much worse would it be to contemplate serving two different bodies in two different sovereign national countries.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Did the right hon. Gentleman give up his seat for Birmingham, North in the European Parliament as soon as he was elected Member of Parliament for Mid-Worcestershire?

Mr. Forth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Chamber. It is good to see a smiling face. I hope that he will participate fully in these debates. I promise him that there is lots of meaty stuff still to come. We have a long way to go even before Third Reading—and I promise that that will be a corker. We have lots and lots to say on that. We are not there yet, but we are making good progress.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the period of overlap between the time that I had the honour to be an MEP and receiving the even greater honour of being elected to this House. There was a year in which I was a Member of both Houses.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman as it had not occurred to me that I have direct personal experience of the dual mandate. That is unusual but not unique, as the dual mandate has been held by a number of other colleagues. I almost certainly did not do justice to either job and the guilt is with me even now. I had to carry all those extra expenses back and forward to the bank and also had to carry extra salary—a third extra—on my slender shoulders for that whole year. Worst of all, I did not know where I was or what I was doing. When I was supposed to be here people thought that I was in Strasbourg and when I was supposed to be in Strasbourg people thought that I was here. Who knows where I was in the meantime?
The hon. Gentleman has allowed me to illustrate the point from my direct personal experience. A humble, simple politician cannot possibly do justice to two


demanding jobs and that, better than anything else, shows the force of my amendment. Surely we have to face up to the problem and cut through it.

Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend has been addressing the problem of serving in two legislatures at the same time and his rather lucid argument has rather taken me away from the point of his amendment. It would prevent somebody who serves in the Irish legislature from becoming a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He referred to the problem of expenses and salaries. When people become Ministers here or in Northern Ireland they have to give up their outside interests and outside remuneration. Members of the Irish legislature receive remuneration as such. Can he turn his mind to that? Can somebody who is being paid as Member of the Irish legislature serve as a Minister in Northern Ireland? Would that be right?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend rightly raises another dimension to the problem. We shall touch on pay and provisions somewhat later in our proceedings, and I am sure that a lot of us cannot wait to get there because they will raise some really interesting problems, but he has given us a taster. We know how difficult it is to deal with the anomalies, conflicts and overlaps that can arise when a Member of the House becomes a Minister or has a dual mandate for the House and another representative body, whether it be the European Parliament or one of the new Assemblies. That would all be bad enough, and we have to devise rules to work our way through it, but how much more difficult would it be when a conflict arose because someone could sit in one legislature and be a member of the Executive in another? There would be a conflict of duty and responsibility and also simple pay and provisions difficulties—how would one be reimbursed for making a journey between the two, for example?
That is a fair and legitimate question. Reimbursement for travel between the House and a constituency is fairly straightforward as is reimbursement for travel between London and Strasbourg, as those of us who have served in the European Parliament know. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, who is sitting beside me, has also served there. That can be dealt with, but we may add yet another dimension to the difficulty and I am pretty sure that Ministers have not given those matters a single thought.
The lack of thought on the Bill has become more and more obvious as the proceedings have unwound and we still cannot understand the motivation behind it. Hints are coming through, however, and it apparently relates to pressure being put on Her Majesty's Government by the Irish Government and Sinn Fein. Our Government, regrettably, have seen the need to accede to those requests without getting anything in return. There is a problem there and we have to get to the bottom of it.
That would be bad enough, but, as our proceedings continue, the evidence grows that the Government have not properly considered the details of the Bill. A moment ago, the Minister had to concede to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that they will have to make changes. He has not told us quite what, but said, "Trust me, I'll do it." That is all we have, but the mere fact that he has said it shows that there has been a lack of thought on the Bill.

Mr. William Ross: I thought from the way in which the Minister was shaking his head that he was already beginning to resile from the undertaking on the principle of amendment No.7 He is shaking his head again. Perhaps he cannot make up his mind. Maybe he would like to explain exactly what the position is.

Mr. George Howarth: I was shaking my head because I do not think I ever used the words "Trust me". What I said was that there was a commitment to introduce amendments in another place covering amendments Nos. 7 and 9.

Mr. Forth: That is what worries me, because these days when a Minister says "I will deliver these amendments in another place" I am not sure how certain the Minister can be of his capability to deliver them in another place. That is an issue which we may have to come to—not now, I accept, although it is somewhat relevant. The Committee of which I am now a member, the Procedure Committee, might have to look at this. Until now, we have been lulled into a false sense of security when a Minister says,"I can't do it here for procedural reasons, but I undertake to bring the amendment forward in another place, so it's all right." But, given what happened very recently in another place, I am not sure that the Government can guarantee to deliver on that.

Mr. Sayeed: As I understand it, the Minister was not saying that he would bring forward the amendment in another place, for procedural reasons. Is it not simply that if he has to bring it forward here we have to have a Report stage?

Mr. Forth: I had spotted that, and I suspect the Minister had as well. The Government are trying to duck the Report stage of this Bill. They are trying yet again to pull the wool over our eyes. They tried it by rushing through Second Reading, allowing no time for amendments between Second Reading and this Committee stage. There would be no time between Committee and Report stage, although we have had an indication—I will not call it a helpful indication—from one of your colleagues, Mr. Lord, that manuscript amendments might well have been accepted in these circumstances. This is no way to legislate.
We are talking about a very serious matter, bearing on some very serious constitutional issues, and we are having to stumble along, being given half-hearted assurances by the Minister, who does not seem quite sure whether he has given them or not. Now he is telling us that, if we hold our breath, shut our eyes and pray, the amendments might bob up in the other place and the Government might get them through. That is no way to make the law, no way to change fundamentals of our constitution, which is what is involved here. We are talking about potential eligibility for membership of the House of Commons, yet we are expected to do it on a wing and a prayer.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Forth: I will give way, but I am anxious to draw my remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is doing very well. There is quite a lot that he could address yet.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of manuscript amendments. How on earth can anyone put down an amendment until we know the form in which the Bill ends this part of its passage? Only when we reach the end of the Committee stage shall we know whether any amendments have been made. We then need time to look at the shape of the Bill and decide what, if any, amendments we need. Already some amendments have been promised, which would colour our thinking. How on earth could we put down manuscript amendments?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that, may I remind him that he himself has already said that that matter has been dealt with?

Mr. Forth: We have been told the way in which it will be, Mr. Lord, and I will not pursue the matter, following your guidance.
I think we have said enough to illustrate that we are potentially in very real difficulty here, unless we are prepared to face squarely the sort of difficulties that I have been describing and have the determination to do something about them.

Mr. Sayeed: In his distinguished career as a Minister my right hon. Friend had to hold very private discussions within his Department where policy and a negotiating stance were decided upon. Ministers in the Irish Parliament obviously have to do the same. If he were a Minister there how would he be able to come to a different Parliament with which negotiations and discussions might have to take place and be able to keep his tongue still?

Mr. Forth: I freely concede that the difficulty my hon. Friend suggests is a real one. It arises from the confidentiality of so much of what Ministers have to do. We of course operate in a very open environment; most of the time we are open to scrutiny and under the public gaze. But Ministers are in a different category altogether. The mixing of the two environments could create real problems.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does not my right hon. Friend personify an even greater problem, in as much as he is a Privy Councillor. How does he cope with that one?

Mr. Forth: That is something we have all missed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised it, and I feel humbled by the fact that he has. I had not spotted it myself. Perhaps the Minister should think about whether membership of the Privy Council would have a bearing on eligibility for membership of a body outside the Commons; and about whether the equivalent obtains in any other legislature. The Oath that we take is a sacred one, and I shudder to think that anything might compromise it. So my hon. Friend is definitely on to something which we must attempt to clarify, even within the ridiculously short amount of time allotted to us.

Mr. Gale: I should like to take my right hon. Friend back to the amendments under debate. I am conscious

that he has been slightly distracted from the purposes of amendments Nos. 3 and 4, but I have been studying them carefully, and I cannot understand how they deal with the problem my right hon. Friend referred to earlier concerning multiple seats and mandates.
I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is currently a Member of the European Parliament, of this House, and of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Under this legislation, it would be perfectly possible for the reverend doctor to go on to become a Member also of the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland—and probably of the Scottish Parliament, too. I cannot see how either amendment even begins to deal with that difficulty.

Mr. Forth: A number of points were wrapped up in my hon. Friend's succinct presentation. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), because he was born in Northern Ireland, is eligible for the Republic's legislature; but only by dint of the fact that he was born in Northern Ireland. That bestows on him a privilege that those of us who were born on the mainland do not have.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Our main concern has focused on a clash of loyalties in sovereign Parliaments, of which ours is still, I hope, one. The other bodies that my hon. Friend mentioned are not: the Assembly in Northern Ireland is a subsidiary body, and the European Parliament is mercifully not a sovereign body, and I hope it never will be. Therefore, it is possible and perhaps even proper for an energetic individual of the type that my hon. Friend mentions to serve with distinction in an Assembly such as that in Northern Ireland, in a Parliament such as that in Strasbourg and in the House of Commons. We may not see much of the individual in any one of those places, but that is okay.
It is possible, but only because the Irish allow it, for that same individual, by dint of having been born in Northern Ireland, to be both a citizen of the United Kingdom and eligible for election to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland. It is a complicated set of circumstances, but I think that I have it right. In mentioning that example, unusual though it is, my hon. Friend may have neatly wrapped up most of the arguments. I do not at this stage want to argue about whether one can have dual or triple mandates in the House of Commons, the European Parliament and the Assembly. That may be for another day. I do want to advance the argument that it is wrong for anyone to seek to serve in the legislature or Executive of both this country and a sovereign country with different interests at one and the same time.
That is the essence of my argument. I hope that the Committee will accept it.

Mr. William Ross: On multiple representation, the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned single, double and treble mandates, but the quadruple element still remains for the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and, indeed, for the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). For different reasons, both are likely to get elected to both Scotland and Dublin. One is likely to be elected to Dublin because of his Irish nationalism, the other because of the


fact that people might want a totally honest face down there. In Scotland, both would enjoy quite large support from disparate elements of the population.

Mr. Forth: I concede that those are all possibilities. It simply illustrates the nonsense of a multiplicity—a plethora even—of representative bodies, which seem to be sprouting before our disbelieving eyes weekly, if not monthly. I hope that my party will have the courage to say to the electorate at the appropriate time that we do not regard that as irreversible and that we believe that the number of representative bodies at any one time should be discussed, debated and considered. That would be my devout hope.
I hope that I have said enough.

Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: It must be the last time.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's generosity is boundless. Does he agree that dual, triple or indeed quadruple mandates are problematic on either score? If the Member concerned is sufficiently energetic to be able to participate in the deliberations of all the legislatures of which he is a member, he is almost certainly repeating daily the conflict of interest that many of us find so repugnant. If he is not doing so because he lacks energy or the flights do not permit him to be in the relevant place at the right time, he is thoroughly ineffectual. Either way, it simply does not work.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is forcing me unwittingly to agree with the Minister, which pains me at this stage of the proceedings. By my reckoning, I have spent the best part of 15 hours disagreeing with the Minister and feeling comfortable about it. Now, at this advanced hour in the Committee stage, I am about to agree with him. I hope that it does not put his career at risk. Here, his point about leaving it to the people has validity. If those who have elected the individual with the multiple representation are prepared to put up with that and to accept, as must be inevitable, that the individual cannot possibly give as much time, dedication and involvement to each of the bodies in which he is serving, that must be a matter for them. Our role is to satisfy ourselves on the qualification point. We must then leave it to the electorate to make their judgment on the representational point.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I am sorry that the 15 hours appear to be taking their toll on my right hon. Friend's memory because I thought that I had dealt with that point thoroughly in an earlier intervention. I pointed out that, if people are elected to those multiple positions on proportional representation list systems, there is no way that the electorate can punish them because, if they are placed high enough on the list, it is the people lower down the list who will take the punishment. For all their abuses, those high enough on the list will continue to be elected.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the good old days, if memory serves—it is failing a bit because I am old man and I have been on my feet for quite a long time—we were able to be elected to single Member constituencies in the European Parliament, single Member constituencies in the House of Commons and, in

the really good old days, single Member constituencies in Northern Ireland. Now, of course, the Government are undermining all that, and that is where my hon. Friend's point comes in. Shall we call it a draw, and perhaps give it some further thought?

Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend's memory really is failing him. Although I do not wish to quarrel with him this early in the morning, it was only a relatively few moments ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made the point on Westminster Great Hall and the House and my right hon. Friend agreed with him, saying that it proved the point that we are having difficulty in being in two places at once.
At 9.30 tomorrow morning—in today's terms, given the insane way in which we are required to operate—I should like to be in Westminster Great Hall, where a debate on education is being held that directly affects the future of grammar schools in Kent. At the same time, however, I should like to be in the Chamber, quite properly continuing and participating in this debate. If I and my hon. Friends cannot be in two places at the same time today, I fail to see how we shall be able to be in Strasbourg, Dublin, Scotland and Lord knows where else at the same time. I also do not understand how amendments Nos. 3 and 4 remotely deal with the problem.

Mr. Forth: They do not, because they were not designed to. However, all those points are perfectly valid and strengthen the general thrust of my remarks. However, I am saved all that embarrassment, because I have made my own personal decision that I shall not honour Westminster Hall with my presence at all. I do not want to give it any encouragement or support, because I do not want the so-called experiment to be declared a success at some time in the future and be made permanent. However, we can address that issue later and separately.
I have done my best to make a modest pitch for my modest but important amendments. I hope that the Committee will be able to agree with me, as I really believe that the provision, if it were included in the Bill, would strengthen it and make it more credible, and would move the Bill some way from being totally inadequate to being just about acceptable.

Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Lord; I wonder whether you could help me. I spent all of yesterday—which is still today—first, considering the Terrorism Bill in Committee, and, secondly, in this Committee. In the debate on clause 3, I had hoped to be able to deal with the Bill's financial aspects.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We have already dealt with clause 3.

Mr. Maginnis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. My difficulty is that, after waiting all night to speak to


the clause, I now find it impossible to address the issue of the Bill's financial aspects in relation to added costs to the House.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat the precise clause or matter that he is dealing with?

Mr. Maginnis: The issue pertains to the demands that would be made by Members of the Dail who come to the House and insist that we use the Irish language.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I repeat my request to the hon. Gentleman. Will he tell the Committee which amendment or new clause he is speaking to?

Mr. Maginnis: Mr. Lord, I am sorry if I do not make myself clear. My difficulty is that there is no provision in the Bill to address a finance issue that needs to be addressed.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman from speaking, but unless he is dealing with a matter that is immediately before the Committee, I cannot allow him to continue. I shall now put the amendment.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Is it a point of order?

Mr. Ross: No; I was hoping to speak to the amendments. However, before I do so, I should say that I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that he was speaking to clause 3.

Mr. Maginnis: Yes.

Mr. Ross: I also believe that you, Sir, mistakenly mentioned clause 3—which we have not reached yet. This group of amendments—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That was my mistake. I assumed that the hon. Gentleman was referring to new clause 3, and we have dealt with that already.

Mr. Ross: Clause 3 is a repeal clause, so is not really relevant to what my hon. Friend said about new clause 3.
There are four amendments in the group. Amendment No. 33 is in my name and the names of my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone and the hon. Member for Macclesfield. The other amendments were tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and are supported by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). They would prevent people from holding multiple seats in various legislatures, and are worthy of careful consideration for that reason.
The amendments to which I have put my name seek to implement our opinion that a conflict of interests would exist if a Member of a foreign legislature were allowed to take decisions that impinged on the social and economic issues in Northern Ireland and its constitutional future,

and on the long-term prospects of its citizens. I have already spoken about the effect that that would have on social matters such as divorce, and on all social legislation. The question of constitutional objectives would become deeper and more bitter if Members of a foreign legislature were involved. Would the Queen's law run in such circumstances, or would Irish opinion prevail?
Those questions are all covered by the amendments, and they cannot be avoided. The amendments are at the heart of our contention that the Bill implies a measure of joint authority. They are therefore essential in order to prevent that coming about.
Yesterday, the Minister agreed that a conflict of interest existed when Ministers were involved. The Dublin Government, like this Government, have a system of collective responsibility, but the system in Northern Ireland is far from the concept of a normal Executive as it is understood here or in Dublin. The Northern Ireland Executive has 10 Members, each of whom has the capacity for independent action, as I shall illustrate later. Of course, a party system also operates, with the same slight differences of opinion that occur anywhere else.
Because the 10 Members of the Executive are effectively free agents, the Northern Ireland Executive does not follow a Cabinet system. Members who are not Ministers have to go along with party policy, much as we have seen here in the past few hours.
Let us suppose that the Cabinet in Dublin decides on a course of action and tells those of its Members who happen to be with the Northern Ireland Executive or Assembly that they will be expected to follow the policies laid down by the party. The first loyalty—even of those elected under the single transferable vote system—would have to be to the party. The party Whips would make their lives a misery, as hon. Members here will recognise.
The Members about whom I am speaking will be required to implement the decisions taken by the party in Dublin, over which the electorate in Northern Ireland have no control at all. The amendments seek to prevent that from happening. Those people will be loyal party members. It matters not whether they are members of Sinn Fein-IRA, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael—they are all bound by their party's decisions and by the policy of the Executive in Dublin. There is no question in the wide world but that they and their colleagues in the STV constituency support the party line because of the real electoral dangers to themselves if they do not.
An interesting aspect is that Sinn Fein-IRA is the only political party to operate in both jurisdictions. Its members always take an all-Ireland view, so they have a certain advantage in the collection of money, for example. They do not have to account for it to this place under the legislation covering the funding of political parties. There is a real difficulty here for everyone concerned, and that alone should be sufficient to convince any reasonable man. Sadly, the Minister and his colleagues are proving themselves to be most unreasonable men in this respect. Any reasonable man would recognise the glaring conflict of interest and the conflict that would arise for citizens. Any reasonable man would also recognise the dangers inherent in igniting, in even fiercer form, all the problems that we have had because of Northern Ireland's constitutional position in the recent past. I think that that


has been snowed under only temporarily by the spin doctors and do-gooders, and that it will come back to the surface again.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) told us of his difficulties when he served in this sovereign Parliament and in the European Parliament at the same time. I can appreciate the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman experienced in those circumstances. He had to fly hundreds of miles to and from the European Parliament, he had to get to his constituency of Birmingham North and he had to get to his parliamentary constituency. He was in quite a different position from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who were mentioned earlier. They represent all of Northern Ireland, so all Northern Ireland is their constituency. Their parliamentary constituency lies within it, and so does their European constituency. In contrast, the constituencies of the right hon. Gentleman did not coincide, so he had a great deal of travelling to do.
When I first came to the House, I was an elected member of my local council.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) must not pass in front of the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Ross: Instead of being tied up in Parliament and in Europe, I was tied up in Parliament and my local council, which had a narrow majority. I therefore gave my party and council friends an undertaking that I would be present at every critical time. I was in that position for about 18 months until the council elections took place. I always believed that it was impossible for me to give up my council seat, and I could not very well give up my parliamentary seat. Therefore, it was essential that I attended both bodies as and when the necessity arose. It caused me a great deal of difficulty. I can sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman because of my own minor problems. The whole idea of a dual or a triple mandate is nonsense; it is not physically possible to hold such a mandate.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and others referred to the problems that we encounter when procedures change. Sometimes, I think that our procedures change whenever Back Benchers catch up and make use of them. Governments decide that it is not good for Back Benchers to be doing as well as the Whips and that they can snarl this place up. Indeed, we shall be lucky to escape some change in procedures as a result of the past few hours. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that the Procedure Committee jealously guards of the rights of Back Benchers and that he will ensure that none of those changes are made. The Committee should try to reimpose on the Executive the authority of the House—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The amendment does not deal with the procedures of the House of Commons. Furthermore, we have heard

sufficient examples of people who serve in different legislatures. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will direct his remarks precisely to the amendment.

Mr. Ross: I appreciate the point that you make, Mr. Lord. We have largely thrashed that horse; we have reached a clear understanding of the matter.
The Bill is nonsense in the eyes of everyone in Northern Ireland, with the sole exception of Sinn Fein-IRA, who clearly want it—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is veering towards a Second Reading speech. Will he please come back directly to the amendments before the Committee?

Mr. Forth: Keep it for Third Reading.

Mr. Ross: As the right hon. Gentleman observes, we can raise those issues on Third Reading.
The IRA welcomes the Bill because its members can see its possibilities. The amendments would diminish those possibilities. For that reason alone, I support the amendments and hope that the Minister will accept them. The IRA would be very much put out if the amendments were accepted; they would cause the organisation problems. That is a good reason to accept them.
The debate illustrates the problems for a Member of the Dail and of the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Executive. Hon. Members should not forget that, often, because of problems in the Dail, majorities are narrow. Governments exist on a knife edge and can change, without an election, as a result of a few people crossing the Floor.
The same problem is imminent in the Northern Ireland Assembly. In some ways, the Assembly is worse off because of its structures—Committees, Ministers and so on. I suppose that Ministers are supreme, but an interesting series of events has taken place during the past few days, which show the necessity for the amendments. The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee has taken certain decisions in relation to the location of maternity services in Belfast. My impression is that the Committee is trying to bounce the Minister, but the Minister, who is a Sinn Fein Member, is saying, "I shall make the decision." There is already the possibility of a clash between the Minister and the Committee.
How much worse will that be if we take the route mapped out by the Bill? It is because I fear those dangers that I ask the Government to prevent them by accepting these sensible amendments.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Sometimes it is a good idea to come to the House early because one finds that interesting things have been going on, which deserve a wider audience. I saw that the House was still sitting, and I thought that there might be a filibuster; I cannot imagine why I would think that. However, a few moments ago I picked up the amendment paper.
We may hear in a few moments whether the Minister will oppose amendment No. 3, which is just about as sane and sensible an amendment as one could want. It is all about who one owes one's loyalty to. It is about whether


one can serve two masters. It is about whether one can serve two legislatures. Ultimately, it is also a question of how many salaries one seeks to draw.
I do not see how one can draw a distinction between being a member of a legislature and being a Minister of that legislature. Different countries have their different traditions, but it is common to most legislatures, and it is certainly common to the legislatures of Northern Ireland, of Great Britain and Eire, that the Ministers are drawn out of the Parliament. That is what it is all about under our democratic system: it is about drawing Ministers out from the legislatures in which they sit.
I do not understand how one is to have a system that properly distinguishes between being able to be a member of a legislature and a Minister in it on one hand or saying that that would not be appropriate, and then at the same time not extending that to cover a Minister of either House as well. It seems to me that those things stand or fall together. I find it remarkable if we are about to hear that the Minister could possibly be resisting that. The two things hang together. For the reasons that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has given, the clause presents irreconcilable conflicts of interest.
If the Minister, in good faith, expects the Bill to proceed—as I expect he did expect it to proceed—in a fairly straightforward manner, he will have to address the issue of those conflicts of interest. There is no tenable argument against the amendment. I can see the Minister thinking about that now. He has had long enough to think about it. Amendment No. 3 should be accepted.

Mr. Gale: I shall speak very succinctly to amendment No. 3 only. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I cannot see how the Minister, if he pursues any sense and logic through this peculiar piece of legislation, can possibly reject amendment No. 3. We have heard earlier this morning that it is possible for a Speaker of the House of Commons to be a Minister in southern Ireland. We have, as far as I can see, created a situation where, under clause 2, we are preventing a Minister in the Irish Republic from being a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, while it is perfectly possible for a Secretary of State or a Minister of State for Northern Ireland in this Parliament to be a Minister in the Irish Republic. There does not seem to be any logic there. The Minister should think that one through.
Yet again, under clause 2, we are creating two tiers. We are creating a tier of people who, if they are Ministers in the Irish Republic, cannot be Ministers in Northern Ireland, and a tier of people who are Ministers in the House of Commons, who are Ministers in Northern Ireland and could be Ministers in the Irish Republic. Where is the logic in that?
If there is any logic in this at all, surely it must be the case not only that anyone who is a Minister in the Irish Republic cannot hold ministerial office in Northern Ireland, but that any member of either House in the Irish Republic cannot hold office in Northern Ireland. That is precisely what amendment No. 3 says. I should be very interested to know on what basis of logic—if there is any at all in these arguments—the Minister can possibly reject that amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On Second Reading, I said that we were bound to come to this issue because it is, as it were, halfway between whether one can be in two legislatures at once—the Government's proposition—and whether one can be in two Governments at once, which no one has argued should be the case. Therefore, this is probably the one area of the Bill that is not approached as a question of principle.
My party's position is that there is not the same conflict of interest if one is a member of both legislatures and becomes part of the Administration of one, as clearly there would be if one were in both Administrations. The Bill does not argue that there should be no dual mandate. We could debate dual mandates within the UK, and within the UK and the European Parliament, or between two legislatures—including two Commonwealth legislatures, as, under existing legislation, one can be a member of two Commonwealth legislatures at the same time.
We have accepted that the Bill does not seek to address that wider issue. There should be a debate about that matter, but I accept the point made by the Under—Secretary earlier that if we were to debate a change to the dual mandate rule in the Commonwealth, we ought to do that after consultation, and not suddenly put it on the agenda here without having raised it with Commonwealth partners.

Mr. Clappison: I note the hon. Gentleman's point about the distinction between being a Minister in both countries and being a member of a legislature in one and a Minister in another. However, is it possible to draw a neat and tidy line between being a member of a legislature and being a Minister? What about those who fall somewhere in between—those who may have the expectation of becoming a Minister, and do not wish to do anything to prejudice that ambition? What about those who may hold some office in between being a member of a legislature and being a Minister? We are familiar with that scenario in this House. Surely, somebody in that situation would have a conflict of interest—even though it was not immediately apparent to people on the outside.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that point. This debate concerns the most finely balanced issues. Clearly, someone who serves in the Dail and in either the Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Parliament might well aspire to be in government. That might not be made public because they might be waiting to see which legislature offers the best opportunity first, so there is a potential hidden conflict of interest.
There is also a conflict of interest, of a type, if one is in the Government in one place—be it the Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Government—and only in the legislature of the other because, by definition, one has a prior duty in the Administration which is in addition to one's duty as a legislator. It cannot be argued that it would be constitutionally justifiable for somebody to represent the UK Government—or the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly—while seeking to speak for the Government of Ireland. Clearly, that must be precluded.

Mr. Gale: So far, the Minister has agreed that the points that I have raised in relation to the Speakership are right. However, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has not taken on board my earlier point. This clause bars Ministers from the Irish


Republic from holding office in Northern Ireland; it does not appear to bar Ministers from the UK House of Commons from holding office in Ireland. It does only half the job, if it does the job at all.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and our subsequent debates will address that point. I support the implication of his intervention, which is that it should not be possible to be a Minister in both legislatures, and my party has tabled a new clause to that effect. I hope that it will be accepted when we reach that debate. If the hon. Gentleman bears with our proceedings, he will be able to argue his case. I hope that he will support the new clauses then.
9 am
Our view is that, on the more limited point, the hon. Gentleman is right. The amendment is simply about whether one can be in the legislature of Ireland and a Minister—the First Minister, Deputy First Minister, a junior Minister or nominated to hold ministerial office—in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That does not raise the same constitutional objection as the point that the hon. Gentleman properly raised. We shall not support the amendments, but we shall support the later new clauses and amendment that will prevent coterminous ministerial office in both sovereign Governments or in the Government of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Swayne: I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that have been well rehearsed in the past hour. Instead, I wish to focus the Minister's mind so that he can deal with the principal question when he replies.
We have dealt with the physical practicalities of dual mandates and with the principle of the desirability of holding such mandates. Much of the complaint that was made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was conceded on Second Reading. The amendments give us the opportunity to correct one of the more glaring problems that remain—the possibility that a Minister of the Crown serving in the Assembly in Northern Ireland can, at the same time, be a Member of either House in the Irish legislature. That absurdity would be closed off by the amendments.
It is absurd because if someone discharges his responsibilities to the Crown and pursues, protects and defends the interests of Her Majesty and the people of Northern Ireland, how can he discharge his responsibilities to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland and to his constituents there? That problem spans almost every sphere of Government activity. For example, it covers the differences in agriculture and the differential interests between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland when they negotiate in Brussels.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) told us of his experience as a Minister in the councils of Europe and of the difficulty that he had in squaring the interests of the United Kingdom with what he scathingly described, in some

cases, as the activities of Irish Ministers. One must not be so scathing, because, after all, they were only defending the interests of the Republic.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I agree with every criticism that my hon. Friend has made of what would happen if the amendments were not accepted. In an intervention on the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), my hon. Friend accused him of moving a wrecking amendment. However, if the amendments were accepted, as I hope they will be, would they not be wrecking amendments? What be would left of the Bill if the absurdity is rectified?

Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is mistaken. I was honest in describing it as a wrecking amendment because it would undermine the principle of the Bill that had been conceded on Second Reading. However, this amendment would remedy a problem that we had with conceding the principle on Second Reading. It tightens up the Bill and thereby improves the Bill's quality by removing a dishonest possibility. I use that phrase because I do not believe that Ministers of the Crown can discharge their responsibilities to the Crown while simultaneously serving the interests of the Republic of Ireland responsibly, as a Member of its Parliament.
I have already mentioned agriculture, which spans every sphere of Government activity. It is highly pertinent to consider the implications of the Bill in the context of economic activity. The Republic of Ireland is now part of the eurozone, whereas the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, is not. That creates divergent interests between the spheres in which such a Minister would operate. It would be truly impossible for him responsibly and honourably to discharge his responsibilities to both sets of constituents.
Another sphere in which that would be impossible is defence. The United Kingdom—and, by implication, Northern Ireland—is part of NATO, whereas the Republic of Ireland has always been neutral. It is monstrous to suggest that, given those stances in international affairs and defence capabilities, one could expect a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive—a Minister discharging responsibilities to the Crown in defence matters—honestly to represent the interests of the Republic of Ireland.
That problem would be remedied by the amendments. I hope that the Minister can explain why he will not accept the amendments, but I would prefer him to explain why he will.

Mr. Sayeed: It has become clear during this debate that there are a series of anomalies within the Bill as originally drafted, that there are contradictions inherent within the Bill, and that absurdities may occur because of the Bill. My question to the Minister is simple: when he was going through the Bill with his civil servants and other Ministers, did they spot those absurdities and notice those contradictions? If so, how did they answer them at that time, to themselves, and will the Minister tell the Committee what those answers were?

Mr. George Howarth: Before I deal with the amendment, I should like to comment on remarks made by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who readily conceded that, late in the day, he had walked in,


picked up a copy of the Bill, looked at the amendments and framed his remarks accordingly. He based his remarks on the principle he enunciated at the start of his brief contribution: that one cannot serve two masters.

Mr. Nicholls: I wondered how the Government could so mishandle their legislation that it was necessary for my right hon. and hon. Friends still to be probing matters so late into the night. When I looked at the amendment the Committee was debating, I could see what the Minister was up to. That is why I came to the Chamber and made my speech.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that further clarification, but I note that the hon. Gentleman does not deny that he based his remarks on a principle he holds important: that one cannot serve two masters. The Committee might be interested to learn that, in the most recent edition of the Register of Members' Interests, under the heading "Remunerated employment, office, profession, etc.", the hon. Gentleman lists no fewer than eight such interests. He is quite within his rights to have such interests and he has quite properly registered them. However, we are bound to ask, how many masters does he serve? We addressed the principle behind the amendment—

Mr. Nicholls: Much as I have always liked the Minister, I have never given great credit to his intellect. Perhaps he cannot understand the difference between having different sources of remuneration and owing allegiance to two different heads of state. Even by his standards, that was a ludicrous contribution.

Mr. Howarth: I am none the wiser as to how the hon. Gentleman sorts out the different principles in different contexts. I shall leave it to the Committee to judge why and how he chose to advance the argument about two masters.
We addressed the principle behind this amendment in the context of an earlier amendment, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Amendment No. 3 is not entirely new territory, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) tried to argue. We covered some of the same ground earlier. In saying that we could not accept the earlier amendment, I set out the Government's position on potential conflicts of interest. We recognise that a potential conflict of interest might arise, were an individual to be a Minister in the Irish Government and in the Northern Ireland Executive. Any Minister must have regard not only to his own constituents, but to the interests of all those in the jurisdiction for which he has responsibility. As a result, it may well be that genuine conflicts of interest arise in those circumstances.
In the rest of the United Kingdom, we can look to the Prime Minister or, for that matter, to the First Minister, whichever may be appropriate, to resolve conflicts of interest. By using his discretion in appointing and dismissing, he has the power to control the situation. No leader of a Government will want in his Government a Minister who is not committed to the interests of all the

people he is charged to serve. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Ministers serve at the discretion of the leader of the Administration.
Uniquely in Northern Ireland, the First and Deputy First Minister do not have discretion to appoint or dismiss all the members of the Executive. Those members are selected under an automatic proportionate system, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, which is the d'Hondt formula. That is why the Government believe that it is right that the clause makes special provision to ensure that an individual may not be a Minister in the Irish Government and in the Northern Ireland Executive.

Mr. Sayeed: I thank the Minister for his courtesy. Does he understand that it is not necessary to be a Minister to have a conflict of interest? All that is necessary is to have two sets of different constituents. As I suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), someone may have two constituencies, one in Ireland and one in England, and be trying to bid for the same contract. In that position, it is not possible to serve two masters effectively.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman was perhaps a little precipitate in intervening, because that is the next point in my speech.
I explained in the earlier debate that we do not accept that conflicts of interest necessarily arise where an individual is simply a Back-Bench Member in one jurisdiction but a Minister in the other. Our position, which I have repeated—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I will have to differ on this point—is that, in such cases, it is a matter for the relevant electorate to decide at whatever point the person concerned submits himself either for election or re-election. They have to decide whether they consider that it is an appropriate thing to.
These amendments turn on the same general issue. The effect would be to prevent an individual from becoming a Member in Northern Ireland, not only if he were a Minister in the Irish Government but if he were a Back-Bench Member in either the Dail or the Irish Senate.
9.15 am
It will therefore be no surprise that we oppose the amendments for almost exactly the same reasons as we gave in an earlier debate. I will not repeat those arguments in detail because we have heard them time and again.
I draw the Committee's attention to a further issue to which the amendments give rise. The amendments would disqualify even a Member of the Irish Senate from being a Minister in Northern Ireland, even though that is possible under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The official Opposition, including the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, did not oppose that measure. Yet the right hon. Gentleman would now reverse that legislation. Section 36(5) of the Act removes the provision for disqualification from the Assembly of Members of the Irish Senate. Parliament made no provision to prevent Members of the Irish Senate from taking up ministerial positions in Northern Ireland. Of course, none of the Northern Ireland Ministers are currently Members of the


Irish Senate. None the less, the amendment would remove an existing right, and not merely constrain the extension of a right.
The Government believe that the House made the right decision last year on the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We oppose the amendment for that reason, and because of the general issues to which I referred.

Mr. Forth: The Under-Secretary's response was perhaps predictable, but it is nevertheless disappointing. He suggests that we must agree to differ. However, it is sad that we have been unable to persuade him of our case over hours of debate in the Chamber on many different amendments.

Mr. Swayne: The Under-Secretary refused to tackle the arguments. He claimed that he had done that in earlier debates. We failed to convey to him the difference in the nature of this debate, which covers Ministers and legislators, rather than mere legislators, which earlier debates tackled. The Under-Secretary did not even address the arguments. That is why his response was so disappointing.

Mr. Forth: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I suspect that the Under-Secretary does not perceive the force of the argument. He does not want, cannot or is not allowed to acknowledge the difficulties that will inevitably arise when tensions occur. At worst, that could undermine the effectiveness of the Northern Ireland Assembly and sour relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, entirely foreseeably.
However, there is an underlying principle, which bothers me. There is an increasing erosion of nationhood, identity, borders and institutions because of the European Union, and we are now considering another influence, which erodes those institutions in a similar way. That is an inherent part of the debate and the anxiety, which many of us share.

Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. I apologise to my right hon. Friend and to you for raising this point of order now. I would ordinarily have done my right hon. Friend the courtesy of waiting until he had finished speaking, but I suspect that we are heading for a Division. I do not know of any procedure for raising a point of order during a Division in Committee, although such procedure exists for the Floor of the House.
I was not present when the Chairman of Ways of Means made his ruling, but I understand that he ruled that it was entirely proper for sittings to take place in Westminster Hall when the House was sitting. The order that the House made on 24 May 1999 allows for Westminster Hall to sit on Thursdays from 2.30 pm for up to three hours while proceedings take place on the Floor. A precedent exists, and I understand the reason for the ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
The motion passed on 24 May states that on days that the House shall sit, there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesdays between 10 am and 1 pm and on Wednesdays between 9.30 am and 2 pm. You may think that this is esoteric, Mr. Lord, but I have consulted "Erskine May" and the precedent is clear. While the day's sitting continues, the House of Commons is sitting, in this case, on Tuesday.
While this House is sitting on Tuesday, I fail to see how a sitting deemed by order of the House on 24 May to start at 10 o'clock on Tuesday—because it is still Tuesday—can or should be allowed to proceed at 9.30am in Westminster Hall. I am certain that when the Chairman of Ways and Means made his ruling, he did not take that into account. I understand why. The fact is that we are sitting on Tuesday, not Wednesday, and Westminster Hall cannot—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means was well aware of all the background when he made his ruling. I believe that he has already dealt with that matter.

Mr. Clappison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not think that there can be anything further to that point of order.

Mr. Clappison: It is a separate point of order, Mr. Lord. We are very close to 9.30am and my right hon. Friend is about to conclude his remarks.

Mr. Forth: indicated assent.

Mr. Clappison: There will be a Division and it is likely that it will coincide with the beginning of the sitting in Westminster Hall. In those circumstances, what is to happen to those of us who wish to take part in the Division and travel in time to Westminster Hall tomorrow?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been in and out of the Chamber this morning but I have already ruled on that point. It will be entirely for the occupant of the Chair in Westminster Hall. We have now dealt adequately with that point of order.

Mr. Forth: We are facing a combination of factors that are conspiring to make it difficult for us to be persuaded by the Minister, to whom many of us have listened over a long period.

Mr. Swayne: That is not entirely true. The Minister has been very sparing with his words at the Dispatch Box. We wished to listen to him a great deal more than we have been able.

Mr. Forth: That must be a matter of judgment. I do not want to fall out entirely with the Minister quite yet because I still nurture the hope that we may be able to persuade him.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I believe that I am correct in saying that the longest speech so far in Committee has been a ministerial speech.

Mr. Forth: There is a nugget of information to treasure. It will be interesting, when Hansard finally appears, to see what information was imparted during that


lengthy ministerial speech. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we should run an eye over the proceedings, to see where the balance lies.
We have tried hard, and happily there is much more to be considered in Committee. We are only part way through the proceedings. To date, we have not been able to persuade the Minister to accept any of the important and fundamental points made in a series of debates.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the points of order, which were properly ruled upon, show that even in this House there can be extremely difficult conflicts of interest over where one should be debating? In a few moments my right hon. Friend, who I believe is a great devotee of Westminster Hall—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That point of order has nothing to do with the amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend's point and my personal circumstances of some years ago illustrate that such conflicts arise more often than might be anticipated. We should have been able to draw the Minister's attention to that in persuading him that something should be done.
It is increasingly likely that the Bill will have no Report stage. It will have been shoved all the way through Committee without amendment. I regret that that is how things look, although there is still hope. The Bill will pass through this House unamended—hardly touching the sides in parliamentary terms—and go to the other place—over which, I am happy to say, the Government do not have any control. There is a real risk that this important and controversial Bill will end up unsatisfactory, unsound and unsafe. If it does, the Committee will have failed to do its job.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Unusually, the right hon. Gentleman has missed a trick because the Home Secretary was in the Chamber and I had hoped that he would catch him. Over the past 12 hours, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who are in charge of the Bill, have been here. Had the right hon. Gentleman been really quick he could have asked the Home Secretary whether he at least could explain why we are considering the Bill so urgently. Sadly, he may have to wait until the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reappears to ask that question.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) did not stray down that route and devoted his attention to the amendment.

Mr. Forth: I have not left the Chamber for 16 hours so the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who understands these matters, will perhaps forgive me if I miss the occasional opportunity. I am still doing my best and if he looks at the amendment paper he will find that there are many exciting opportunities still to come.
I give you, Mr. Lord, a little advance notice. I hope that you agree that a brief debate on clause 3 stand part is appropriate, for example, because we have not yet touched on that subject. There is something for us all to look forward to and there are many more goodies to come. The highlight of the debate—the bonanza—will of course be Third Reading, when we shall all have an opportunity to review where we have arrived at—in order and with your guidance. We could perhaps exchange ideas about how the Bill could be dealt with, even at that late stage, but I am anticipating myself and the proceedings.

Mr. William Ross: My right hon. Friend talks about Third Reading, but we should have a detailed look at my new clauses on salaries and allowances before that. We could not possibly allow them to pass us by.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. First, we should deal with the amendment.

Mr. Forth: Certainly, but I make a plea. The Committee should give the Government yet another chance to improve the Bill by supporting the amendment. I hope that it will do so, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, this will not be the last chance to make improvements.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 234.

Division No. 46]
[9.28 am


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Chope, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Forsythe, Clifford
Swayne, Desmond


Gale, Roger
Thompson, William


Hunter, Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Mr. Eric Forth and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. David Maclean.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Burgon, Colin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allen, Graham
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Caplin, Ivor


Ashton, Joe
Cawsey, Ian


Atkins, Charlotte
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Barnes, Harry
Chaytor, David


Battle, John
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Berry, Roger
Clelland, David


Best, Harold
Coaker, Vernon


Betts, Clive
Cohen, Harry


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coleman, Iain


Blizzard, Bob
Colman, Tony


Borrow, David
Connarty, Michael


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cooper, Yvette


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradshaw, Ben
Corston, Jean


Breed, Colin
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cranston, Ross


Browne, Desmond
Crausby, David


Burden, Richard
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)






Cummmings, John
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire



Dalyell, Tam
Macdonald, Calum


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
McDonnell, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McFall, John


Davidson, Ian
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Dawson, Hilton
McIsaac, Shona


Dean, Mrs Janet
Mackinlay, Andrew


Denham, John
McNulty Tony


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Mactaggart, Fiona


Donohoe, Brian H
McWalter, Tony


Doran, Frank
Mallaber, Judy


Dowd, Jim
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Efford, Clive
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ennis, Jeff
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Martlew, Eric


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Maxton, John


Flint, Caroline
Meale, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Merron, Gillian


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Moffatt, Laura


Gapes, Mike
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gardiner, Barry
Moran, Ms Margaret


Gerrard, Neil
Morley, Elliot


Gibson, Dr Ian



Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mountford, Kali


Goggins, Paul
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Grogan, John
Olner, Bill


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Pearson, Ian


Healey, John
Perham, Ms Linda


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Pickthall, Colin


Hepburn, Stephen
Pike, Peter L


Heppell, John
Plaskitt, James


Hood, Jimmy
Pollard, Kerry


Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pound, Stephen


Howells, Dr Kim
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Prosser, Gwyn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Purchase, Ken


Hutton, John
Quinn, Lawrie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Rammell, Bill


Illsley, Eric
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Rooney, Terry


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jamieson, David
Ruddock, Joan


Jenkins, Brian
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Sanders, Adrian


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Savidge, Malcolm


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Sawford, Phil


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sheerman, Barry


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Keetch, Paul
Simpson, Alan (Nottinoham S)


Kemp, Fraser
Singh, Marsha


Kidney, David
Skinner, Dennis


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Laxton, Bob
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Lepper, David



Leslie, Christopher
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Soley, Clive


Linton, Martin
Spellar, John


Lock, David
Squire, Ms Rachel


Love, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


McCabe, Steve
Stevenson, George





Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Stinchcombe, Paul
Ward, Ms Claire


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wareing, Robert N


Stringer, Graham
Watts, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Willis, Phil


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilson, Brian


Tipping, Paddy
Winnick, David


Todd, Mark
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Touhig, Don
Wood, Mike


Trickett, Jon
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Mike Hall and


Tynan, Bill
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived, nil
THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 68, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee proceeded to a Division.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): In view of the delay in the Division Lobby, I would ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 228, Noes 22.

Division No. 47]
[9.42 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)



Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clelland, David


Ashton, Joe
Coaker, Vernon


Atkins, Charlotte
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Battle, John
Colman, Tony


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Connarty, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Cooper, Yvette


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Berry, Roger
Corston, Jean


Best, Harold
Cousins, Jim


Betts, Clive
Cranston, Ross


Blears, Ms Hazel
Crausby, David


Blizzard, Bob
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cummings, John


Borrow, David
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davidson, Ian


Browne, Desmond
Dawson, Hilton


Burden, Richard
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burgon, Colin
Denham, John


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dismore, Andrew


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Donohoe, Brian H


Canavan, Dennis
Doran, Frank


Caplin, Ivor
Dowd, Jim


Cawsey, Ian
Efford, Clive


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Chaytor, David
Ennis, Jeff


Clapham, Michael
Field, Rt Hon Frank






Fisher, Mark
Martlew, Eric


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Maxton, John


Flint, Caroline
Meale, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Merron, Gillian


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Moffatt, Laura


Gapes, Mike
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gardiner, Barry
Moran, Ms Margaret


Gerrard, Neil
Morley, Elliot


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mountford, Kali


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Goggins, Paul
Mudie, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Grocott, Bruce
Olner, Bill


Grogan, John
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hain, Peter
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Pearson, Ian


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Perham, Ms Linda


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Pickthall, Colin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Pike, Peter L


Healey, John
Plaskitt, James


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Pollard, Kerry


Hepburn, Stephen
Pope, Greg


Heppell, John
Pound, Stephen


Hood, Jimmy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hope, Phil
Primarolo, Dawn


Hopkins, Kelvin
Prosser, Gwyn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Purchase, Ken


Howells, Dr Kim
Quinn, Lawrie


Hoyle, Lindsay
Rammell, Bill


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Rooney, Terry


Hutton, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Savidge, Malcolm


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Sawford, Phil


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Shaw, Jonathan


Jamieson, David
Sheerman, Barry


Jenkins, Brian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Singh, Marsha


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Soley, Clive


Kemp, Fraser
Spellar, John


Kidney, David
Squire, Ms Rachel


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Laxton, Bob
Steinberg, Gerry


Lepper, David
Stevenson, George


Leslie, Christopher
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Linton, Martin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Lock, David
Stringer, Graham


Love, Andrew
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


McCabe, Steve
Temple-Morris, Peter


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark


Macdonald, Calum
Touhig, Don


McDonnell, John
Trickett, Jon


McFall,John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


McIsaac, Shona
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


McNulty, Tony
Tynan, Bill


Mactaggart, Fiona
Walley, Ms Joan


McWalter, Tony
Ward, Ms Claire


Mallaber, Judy
Wareing, Robert N


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Watts, David


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wicks, Malcolm





Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Worthington, Tony


Wilson, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Mike
Mr. Graham Allen and


Woolas, Phil
Mr. Gerry Sutdiffe.


NOES


Allan, Richard
Keetch, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Beggs, Roy
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Brake, Tom
Nicholls, Patrick


Breed, Colin
Ross, William (E Lond'y)



Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Sanders, Adrian



Thompson, William


Cotter, Brian
Tyler, Paul


Forsythe, Clifford
Willis, Phil


Foster, Don (Bath)



Gale, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Eric Forth and


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I wonder whether you can help us. I am aware that sometimes the Chairman of a Committee knows what the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker might know. Have any amendments been tabled yet for Report? Could they have been? Is it in the mind of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker to allow a Report stage? I ask that for the convenience of all hon. Members, so that we know what lies ahead.
Secondly, has there been any indication of when this matter is expected to be considered in the other place? That, too, may govern how we want to organise ourselves today, especially with regard to whether we sit beyond 2.30 pm.

The First Deputy Chairman: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that there will be a Report stage only if the Bill is amended. It has not so far been amended. The question of the other place is nothing to do with these Committee proceedings.

Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. When the Select Committee on Modernisation set up the sittings in Westminster Hall that coincide with those in the Chamber, do you know whether it considered the problem before us?

The First Deputy Chairman: There is no problem before us. I am going to put the Question that clause stand part. There is absolutely no problem in this Committee.

Clause 3

CONSEQUENTIAL REPEAL

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: We have had some interesting debates. They have been a bit fragmented, which is natural. But now we can get our teeth into a clause with some real issues in it. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends


will agree that the clause requires particularly close attention. I suspect that many of my colleagues will want to have their say about it.
The clause is deceptively simple. At first reading, it looks like a straightforward matter that can be dispensed with readily, allowing us to move on. Of course, we want to move on; I cannot wait to get to Third Reading. There is a really big speech in me and I am desperate to make it. These matters are almost distractions, albeit important ones.
Clause 3—seductively inoffensive as it appears—contains some real issues. For the first time, we can concentrate our minds on the Irish Senate. I feel more comfortable with that nomenclature. I cannot be doing with all the funny wording in the Bill; if I tried to pronounce it, I should probably get it wrong. If you will indulge me, Mr. Martin, I think that "Irish Senate" will do.
Clause 3 refers to section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—a copy of which I have before me.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If we are proposing to repeal that subsection of the Act, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether other parts of the section should be considered? Is subsection (5) the only one that could possibly be described as redundant because it is covered elsewhere?

Mr. Forth: That is an important question, which my hon. Friend put with typical incisiveness. Section 36 of the 1998 Act is headed "Disqualification". If I may briefly digress, that has a bearing on some of our previous debates. For the past 17 hours, Ministers have been at pains to tell us repeatedly that disqualification is a chimera because such matters should be left entirely to the electorate.
However, section 36 of the Labour Government's 1998 Act sets out disqualification provisions. When I referred earlier to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, I would have understood if Ministers had used as their excuse the fact that it was an old Act. However, their own 1998 Act covers disqualification.

Mr. Brady: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not let the Government off quite that lightly, because the 1975 Act was also passed by a Labour Government.

Mr. Forth: I suspect that, if we were to pursue the matter—although I shall not do so—Ministers would claim that the 1975 Act was old Labour and that the 1998 Act is new Labour. We are considering new Labour disqualification.
In order to set the scene and to make a telling point to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, I note that section 36(3) states:
A person who is Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for a county or county borough in Northern Ireland is disqualified for membership of the Assembly for a constituency comprising the whole or part of the county or county borough.
That disposes of the specious argument, which we have heard again and again for the past 16 or 17 hours, that we must leave all those matters to the electorate. However,

the new Labour Government's own Act, bearing on Northern Ireland, contains a disqualification of Lord Lieutenants—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Lords Lieutenant.

Mr. Forth: I stand corrected. I have been in the Chamber for a long time and my hon. Friend must forgive me.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend poses the Committee what seems to be a puzzling conundrum. Does he agree that, by and large, the ministerial offender who is most at fault on the subject of "leave it to the voters" is not the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is currently sitting on the Treasury Bench, but the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? During the passage of the 1998 Act, was not the present Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Home Office Minister? He has only recently been transferred—I think, without fee—to the Northern Ireland Office.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The clause is extremely narrow. I cannot allow those matters to be discussed.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Martin. It leads me directly to section 36(5) of the 1998 Act, which is referred to in the clause. It states simply:
A person is not disqualified for membership of the Assembly by virtue of subsection (1) by reason only that he is a member of the … Senate of Ireland".
There "Senate" is in English, which helps me.
We are confronted with, on the face of it, a simple question: should Members of the Senate of Ireland be disqualified and, if so, from what? That is a new question for us to face, because I think that I am right in saying—although I have been in the Chamber for so long that I have not been able to do as much research as I should have liked—that the Irish Senate is not a directly elected body but almost entirely appointed. It is a sort of Irish Tony's cronies.

Rev. Martin Smyth: That is not completely correct, because I believe that some of the Members are elected by the universities.

Mr. Forth: I am not sure that I would count that. I believe that my general point stands.
Here we have the opportunity to seek to draw a distinction, if such a distinction should exist in this case, between elected representatives in assemblies, and Senators, who are not necessarily elected. I want to develop that argument in the context of whether there should be a disqualification across a national boundary.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I was going to offer my right hon. Friend some comfort by reminding him that Gordon Wilson of Enniskillen, whose daughter was killed in the Enniskillen bomb and who, with great Christian grace,


forgave those who caused her death, was appointed to the Irish Senate subsequently; so at least some Members of the Senate are appointed.

Mr. Forth: The appointment of that individual also illustrates two or three of the themes of our debates, as my right hon. Friend knows. First, it shows that someone who is born in Northern Ireland has a unique distinction and qualification south of the border. Secondly, that it is by dint of a decision of the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland that these things happen. I have no problem with that, and I have made no argument with the Irish over that decision. We are talking about what decisions we should take here, in this sovereign Parliament, about whether we believe that politicians of whatever kind should be able to cross our border into part of our United Kingdom and play a part in a representative body.
The interesting thing about clause 3 is that here, for the first time, we can focus—and I want to be very focused on this because if I was not, I would fall over—on the fact that we are talking now about the Senate, a non-elected body. The question that we must ask ourselves, in the context both of clause 3 and of the 1975 Act, is whether we believe that the fact that the Senate is not directly elected should lead us to treat it any differently from a political body composed of elected members.
That is a very real question, for many reasons. Earlier, we considered some of the conflicts that could arise as between elected members of one body and elected members of another. We did so in some detail, but not as much as I should have liked. In my opinion, we have skipped lightly over the Bill. We have done our best, but time has not been generous to us. However, we have dug up, discovered and examined several of the conflicts that could arise. There have been obvious conflicts of time and place. There have certainly been conflicts of loyalty. We have even occasionally touched on the subject of oaths and whether oaths of loyalty or their equivalent would create difficulties for elected members in two different bodies trying to square the circle and discharge their responsibilities in the fullest possible sense.
Of course, the question may be different—I pose it as a question because I still have not resolved the matter in my mind—for a Senate-type body or a body of the Irish Senate type, which is largely appointed or delegated and not elected. One could argue that, because the body is not elected, and because it has therefore a different role and different responsibilities—

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I intervene at this point to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is indeed a very narrowly drawn clause. As he has pointed out, we have dealt with the points that arise from it because this is consequential upon clause 1, where the issues have already been discussed.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I call Mr. Forth.

Mr. Forth: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I prefer your guidance to that of the Minister in these matters. I will overlook his impudence, as I am sure you will, since you are a generous chap.
If the Minister wants to skate over this point, that is a matter for him. However, that will simply reinforce the view that we have held increasingly during these proceedings—that Ministers are not prepared to look seriously at their own Bill.

Mr. Robathan: Does not the clause show how the Government overlook things and get things badly wrong? We were told that the question of allowing members of the legislature in Ireland to sit in our Parliament was considered at the time of the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Yet within 18 months of that Act becoming law, we are being asked to change it. Surely that shows how little faith we should have in Ministers who do not consider the details of their legislation.

Mr. Forth: With his usual perspicacity, my hon. Friend has anticipated one of my next arguments. I am only in my preamble, and there is a lot more to come.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: What would happen if the Government were to change their mind again and repeal what will become the Act, and then reinstate section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998? If the Government have not considered that, we ought to get a policy statement. Perhaps the Minister should be consulting his advisers and finding out what his view ought to be, let alone what it actually is.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I would point out to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that I have already stated that this is a narrow clause. The reason why it is a very narrow clause is that it is a consequential clause, because the Committee has already agreed to clause 1. In effect, this is a consequential amendment. Therefore, we cannot go over all the arguments put with regard to clause 1 again.

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. If my intervention on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst prompted that ruling, I apologise. I was hoping to ask what happens if the Bill becomes an Act and is later repealed. Were clause 3 not to stand part of the Bill, the qualification for a Member of the Senate to come in would still apply. If I trespassed over ground that has been covered before, I apologise.

The First Deputy Chairman: I stress that it is a small point that the hon. Gentleman makes—it is not a point that we can make a meal of at this time.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Martin. The distinction in my mind is that whereas clause 1 refers in a generic sense to the Northern Ireland Assembly disqualification, clause 3 focuses specifically on the Senate. There is an opportunity under clause 3 for us to consider whether the Senate should be treated differently from or the same as the Assembly. That is a crucial difference, especially given the fact that the Senate is of a different political nature.

Mr. James Gray: My right hon. Friend might value the information that the Irish Senate


consists of 43 members elected to represent five vocational panels, six members elected to represent Irish universities and 11 members appointed by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Forth: I hesitate to explore that matter further. However, I suspect that the use of the term "elected" is rather loose, as I doubt whether they are directly elected. I do not want to get distracted in that way, as I wanted to take a succinct look at the matter. I wanted to set the stage for the debate, rather than hog the time. As you know, Mr. Martin, I try never to do that. I am trying to draw out the main themes of the debate in the context of section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
10.15 am
I was briefly considering the difference in treatment that the Committee might have to consider. A political body that is elected and which is therefore fully comparable to the House and to the Northern Ireland Assembly even though it is peculiarly elected by the gentleman called d'Hondt, about whom we keep hearing but none of us fully understand—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: He is dead.

Mr. Forth: Well, the dead d'Hondt—or the late Professor d'Hondt, if one wants to be more gentlemanly about it.
Consequential or not, the Irish Senate is referred to separately in clause 3 because it was dealt with separately in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That means that we must give it proper and separate consideration. It might have been treated separately because it is, in substance, different from the other bodies that we have considered. It is certainly separate in the context of the Bill.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am a former graduate of Trinity college, but a much earlier graduate, Edmund Burke, gave us the guideline that Members should come to the House not as delegates but as representatives. Is there not a difference between those, such as Gordon Wilson, Dr. Robb and others, who were appointed to the Senate by the Taoiseach and those who were elected? Where does the loyalty of those appointed by an individual lie?

Mr. Forth: These are vital considerations. An interesting and respectable publication has fallen conveniently into my hands. It was produced by the constitutional unit of the UCL school of public policy, so I suppose that it can be trusted. I shall quote it briefly because I am sure that the Committee wants to understand the context:
The Irish Senate is a weak second chamber within a relatively weak Parliament.
That is not very complimentary. Are its Members the people with whom we are supposed to be playing transfer? It adds:
Its powers were weakened under the new constitution of 1937. It has only 90 days to consider any legislation that comes from the Dail, which in turn may overturn any amendments after a further 180 days. The Senate has no powers over financial legislation and no power to appoint or dismiss the Government.
That illustrates that we are dealing with a political body that is quite different from the elected Assembly in the Republic of Ireland and from the unicameral Assembly in

Northern Ireland. It is different again from the combination of the House of Commons and the new transitional House of Lords, whose final composition we do not yet know.

Mr. David Maclean: My right hon. Friend suggested that the Senate was not elected in the normal sense. The excellent constitution unit booklet shows that it is made up from five vocational groups, it is voted through by the out-going Members of the previous Senate, by some people in local councils and by Members of the lower House. It is very much an old boys' and old girls' network who put in their own placemen from their own vocational groups. He is right to suggest that it is not an elected Assembly.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a convenient point to stop the right hon. Gentleman. Once again, I make it clear that such arguments could have been made on clause 1. If my memory serves me correctly, they were made on clause 1. [Interruption.] Order. I have as good a memory as any other hon Member. That is why am in this job.
Clause 1 refers to the "member of the legislature". That includes the Senate as well as the Dail. This is a technical and consequential clause, and we are narrowly constrained by it. We cannot talk about the make-up of the Senate in this debate.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Your remarks are helpful, but will you confirm that clause 1 provides for the removal of a disqualification, whereas clause 3 provides for the removal of a qualification, and that there is, in some sense, a difference between the two, even though they appear to be the reverse of each other? Although the clauses are different, the arguments are not identical, and it is relevant to note the distinction between the two clauses.

The First Deputy Chairman): It is not my obligation, but the Minister's, to explain the Bill to the Committee. If the Minister were to start to explain clause 1 in great detail, I would rule him out of order, because we moved on from clause 1 after having a lengthy debate on it. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) must speak only to clause 3. If he or any other hon. Member who intervenes during his speech strays from the confines of that narrow clause, I shall have to intervene. I do not like having to intervene, because it disrupts the flow of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin. You have referred to matters that should have been debated and answered during the debate on clause 1, but what if it is the view of the Committee—at least, those on the Opposition Benches—that those matters were not properly dealt with at that time? Is it not the right of the Committee to probe such matters during debate on a later clause, even though that clause is rather tightly drawn, as you have rightly pointed out?

The First Deputy Chairman: We have to keep within the narrow confines of clause 3. My remarks might be construed as implying that clause 1 offered greater opportunity and scope to debate the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Therefore, in a sense, hon.
Members have missed the boat by waiting until clause 3 stand part to raise matters that they should have raised in connection with clause 1.

Mr. Brady: On a separate point of order, Mr. Martin. You have, rightly, drawn attention to the Bill's description of the clause as consequential. However, my reading of the two clauses reveals no inconsistency between the provision removed under clause 3 and that which is proposed under clause 1. Surely, clause 3 is not strictly consequential, given that there is no need to remove it from the other legislation?

The First Deputy Chairman: I can concern myself only with clause 3. I used clause 1 as an example, but said that we had now moved on from that clause to clause 3, which is narrowly drawn. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has got my point.

Mr. Forth: I have indeed, Mr. Martin—indeed, how could I fail to do so? I am a simple man and can only tell these things as I see them. It complies with your guidance to say that it struck me that there had to be a clause 3 to determine the treatment of the Irish Senate within the overall framework of the Bill. If that determination had been unnecessary, clause 3 would have been unnecessary. My view is that clause 3 is necessary because of the provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which, in turn, singles out the Irish Senate, albeit for different reasons.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Forth: Have I upset my hon. Friend?

Mr. Bottomley: No, I am not upset; I just think that my right hon. Friend is wrong. If the Government had not proposed clause 3—we have yet to hear why they thought it essential to do so—the result would have been belt and braces, with all sorts of reasons given as to why a Member of the Senate should be able to be qualified. The question of whether Lords-Lieutenant should be able to do certain things is another matter. However, I do not believe that clause 3 is necessary—it is matter of choice. The question of why that choice was made is one that my right hon. Friend should ask. If I have misunderstood his remarks, I apologise.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is, as ever, helpful, in that he has got to the point quicker than I would have done. That is, of course, a good thing, which we all want.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I wonder whether you can help the Committee. Westminster Hall has now started Wednesday's business. Before the commencement of the Westminster Hall experiment, Tuesday's business in this place continued until 2.30 pm, when Wednesday's business began. Can you help us by telling us whether we are now in Tuesday's business or Wednesday's business?

The First Deputy Chairman: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are in Tuesday's business. What goes on outside the Chamber has nothing to do—[Interruption.] Order. I would appreciate being able to answer the right

hon. Gentleman. I shall then take other points of order. What goes on outside the Chamber is nothing to do with us. This is a Committee of the whole House.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: That is a helpful ruling, Mr. Martin, but will you go one step further to remove a continuing confusion that I at least have? My understanding was that Westminster Hall was but an extension of the Chamber, and that the rules setting it up in effect moved Wednesday's business from the Chamber to Westminster Hall, but did not establish a separate entity. In that sense, it is but an extension of this place. Therefore, I remain confused because Westminster Hall is on Wednesday's business and we are on Tuesday's business, though it is but an extension of us.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot go into the business that is taking place in Westminster Hall. I have instructions to take the business of the Committee and to be its Chairman. That is what I must do. If the right hon. Gentleman has any concerns about what is going on in Westminster Hall and feels that perhaps it is a breach of the rules of the House, he can take up the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means. He is entitled to do that.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Your advice about taking up the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means is useful. However, I wish to raise a different matter.
We have a dilemma that we share with other parts of the House. The words that are being said in Westminster Hall will be recorded in the Official Report. The question is which day they will be reported under. If, for example, this debate continues and we lose Wednesday's business, there will not be a Wednesday's Official Report. It may be that what is said in Westminster Hall on a Wednesday will be reported on a Tuesday in the Official Report; or it may be that it will have to be reported on a Thursday when the House comes back.
Obviously these are not matters for you, Mr. Martin, as Chairman of the Committee. However, it might be helpful if some of these matters could be considered. Whatever decisions have to be taken during the next day or two, or this day, should not be regarded as precedents if they involve matters that should be referred to another Committee or for deeper consideration. We should understand that what is happening now is provisional and that what is happening apparently at Westminster Hall on a Wednesday might be taking place on Tuesday, Thursday or Wednesday.

The First Deputy Chairman: This is a Committee of the whole House. The best that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that his voice and concerns have been heard. That is the best way I can put it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I think that all hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber recognise the difficulties in which you find yourself as a result of the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). However, I must support what he said. Westminster Hall is an extension of the Chamber.
May I press you a little further, Mr. Martin, because you are supposed to safeguard the rights of the House of Commons and the rights of Members? Could you, as Chairman of the Committee, seek to make inquiries as to whether it is in order for Westminster Hall to be sitting at this time?

The First Deputy Chairman: I have no difficulties with that. I am here to chair a Committee of the whole House. As the hon. Gentleman said, hon. Members have rights, including a right to be heard in such a Committee. Westminster Hall has its own rules and it is not for me to concern myself with what is happening there. My current duty is to chair the Committee of the whole House. If many hon. Members make points of order about Westminster Hall, we shall be in danger of departing from the Committee's business. I can say no more about Westminster Hall.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I am sorry to trouble you, but it is important for the constitutional position to be clear, especially to new Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said that Westminster Hall was not separate from, but was an extension of, the House. That point is underlined by a simple occurrence that we witness daily: the Official Report of the debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall are reproduced in the same volume. Does not that testify to the fact that they are one entity?

The First Deputy Chairman: All the rules and conventions for Westminster Hall have been agreed by the House. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that we are now in a Committee of the whole House and we must get on with the Committee's business.

Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that it is not about Westminster Hall.

Mr. Maclean: I am afraid that it is a related point. You rightly ruled that we should take up the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, it is difficult to do that while participating in the debate in Committee. Hon. Members in Westminster Hall may also want to participate in our debate—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to cut the right hon. Gentleman short, but when I told the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire to take up the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means, I did not expect him to go to Westminster Hall, and take the Chairman from the Chair for a discussion. He and other hon. Members can arrange to meet the Chairman of Ways and Means to discuss the matter.

Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. My point is about the good standing of the House. I know that you and your colleagues—indeed, the Speaker herself—take seriously the standing of the House, which is the mother of Parliaments, and respected throughout the

world. Do we not look ridiculous if we are sitting in two different places on different days, which are really the same day?

The First Deputy Chairman: That matter has been covered. The House has considered those issues.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. To my surprise, the Table Office says that today is Wednesday, whereas you have ruled that it is Tuesday, regardless of events in Westminster Hall. Surely the Table Office should remain closed until Wednesday's business begins.

The First Deputy Chairman: Today is obviously Wednesday. [Interruption.] Order. I told the Committee that we were dealing with Tuesday's business because the sitting has been unbroken. We remain in Tuesday's sitting.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. William Ross: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have made my ruling. We must return to the business of the Committee. Did the hon. Member for East Londonderry have a point of order?

Mr. Ross: I am not sure whether it is a point of order or a point of clarification. You told us earlier, Mr. Martin, that we were in a Committee of the whole House. However, with the best will in the world, it is impossible for the whole House to be present. Half the hon. Members are in Westminster Hall.

The First Deputy Chairman: We are in a Committee of the whole House in the sense that all hon. Members can be here if they wish. Attendance has nothing to do with the Chair. The important thing is that I am here, and so is the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forth: I will express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) in his absence, so that it can be reported to him and he can read it in Hansard. He unerringly put his finger on a point that I had not quite zeroed in on, when he pointed out the blindingly obvious. The Government are making a discretionary change that, if they had not made it, would have left the status quo ante. That simple matter leads us directly to consider a positive act by the Government in seeking to change the status in of the Irish Senate in the Bill.
You are right, Mr. Martin, to remind me that the debate is narrowly drawn. I will not explore the composition of the Irish Senate, however fascinating that may be, but I thought it legitimate to point out that the Senate's unelected composition might give it a different relationship with the Northern Ireland Assembly and House of Commons.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend seems to be embarking on an exposition that focuses on an argument between form and substance. Heeding your exhortation, Mr. Martin, that my right hon. Friend and I should not discuss the make-up of the Irish Senate but could more


profitably focus on the fact that it is not the means of getting into the Irish Senate that matters but the rights and powers that somebody, once there, can exercise—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I will not even allow the right hon. Gentleman to answer. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister and knows full well what I mean when I say that this is a narrow and consequential motion.

Mr. Forth: Of course I accept your guidance, Mr. Martin, but the provision does seek to change the status of the relationship of the Senate and its members. If clause 3 did not exist, that status would remain the same, as determined by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Government, in a positive act, decided to introduce clause 3—which overturns the 1998 Act and alters the status of the Irish Senate. I submit that the Committee is obliged to focus on that issue and ask whether it is content.
If we vote against clause 3 stand part, that would leave the requirements of the 1998 Act intact—which would in turn allow members of the Irish Senate to be members also of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Having set the scene, and taking the hint that my mind is giving me, I will invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to debate the matter. I have not made up my mind. I have not come down on one side of the argument rather than the other.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I will—but with some reluctance because my mind is mud.

Mr. Maclean: Because of the points of order, I rather lost track of the central thrust of my right hon. Friend's argument. I was hoping that before he sits down, he will, within order and without repeating himself, give a brief synopsis that I can explore in more detail.

Mr. Forth: I was trying to do that and had just about got there when my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West—no doubt trying to be helpful—almost threw me off track. I will try and boil it down as simply as I can for my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, because I know he likes it that way.
Clause 3 seeks positively to alter the status quo prevailing before the Bill, as laid down in the Northern Ireland Act 1998—which provided for disqualification.
Our decision at its simplest—although it cannot be treated too simply—is whether to accept the change in the clause. I hope that that is simple enough for my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, because I am unlikely to have another go at it. That is the way I see things. A lot of useful debates have led up to this focused discussion, which will allow us to consider the Senate and its relationship with other bodies. I look forward to the debate that will follow my brief introductory remarks.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The clause is narrow and consequential. It provides for the repeal of section 36(5)

of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which allows a Member of the Irish Senate to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Slow down."] Clause 1 has the same effect. As section 36(5) is no longer needed, we have in that sense already discussed those issues.

The First Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. Simon Hughes.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it in order for the Minister to jump to the Dispatch Box, gabble incoherently for 30 seconds and sit down without explaining the clause or taking interventions?

The First Deputy Chairman: What the Minister says is absolutely nothing to do with me. I am not responsible for his speech.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. We all have a problem: the Minister talked so fast that we do not know what he said. [Interruption.] I am not sure that Hansard will pick it up either, and civil servants will probably be sent to check his remarks. Even they might not know what he said. With great respect, I suggest that he repeats his speech.

The First Deputy Chairman: The delivery of the Minister's speech is absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin. Is not it part of the rules and procedures of the House that a Minister should at least be intelligible to other Members? Unlike him, I have been here all night. Nevertheless, my faculties are still sharp enough to enable me to distinguish one word from another, if they are distinguishable. His were not.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Chair is not responsible for whether hon. Members understand one another. That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members do not intend to raise points of order on the Minister's speech.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Please sit down, Mr. Bercow. I hope that these points of order are not on the Minister's speech because we have had a series of them about that.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. As you have so rightly said on so many occasions, hon. Members have to take responsibility for what they say, but I did not hear what the Minister said and neither did my


hon. Friends. You must have heard what he said, otherwise you would be as angry as we are. Can you tell us what he said, because clearly he cannot?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Listening to these points of order is becoming tiresome. I hope that this one is not on the Minister's speech.

Mr. Bercow: My point of order is not to do with understanding the Minister; it is quite different and separate.

The First Deputy Chairman: I have made my case on the Minister's contribution. You must resume your seat, Mr. Bercow. I call Mr. Simon Hughes.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have a responsibility to allow the Committee to flow properly.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. In response to an earlier point of order, when I sought your guidance, you invited me to take advice from the Chairman of Ways and Means about the fact that we are on Tuesday's business and the extension of the Chamber—Westminster Hall—is on Wednesday's business. I believe that I can accurately reflect the remarks of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He said that this situation is not covered in Standing Orders, that it would be in the spirit of the Westminster Hall experiment to continue, albeit on different days, and that no doubt the Modernisation Committee would wish to review the matter in the context of the overall experiment.
Having reported back on doing what you suggested I should do, Mr. Martin, I wish to raise the following point of order. Given that this matter is not covered by Standing Orders, is the Chair content that it has all the powers necessary for the proper conduct of this business, in view of the ambiguity that has arisen?

The First Deputy Chairman: I am not responsible for Westminster Hall; I am responsible for this Committee of the whole House. If the right hon. Gentleman has any problem about Westminster Hall, this is not the time and place to raise it. I have devoted some 20 minutes to the question of Westminster Hall. I really cannot take any more points of order about it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Mr. Martin, at last! Good morning. I imagine that even that early contribution may be controversial.
Points of order have been perfectly properly raised about the links between here and Westminster Hall. We are now into a debate that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) introduced on whether people in the Irish Senate could also be Members

of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have to reflect that the one question that still remains unanswered in all this is why these sorts of issues—in what is, by any definition, a relatively modest Bill—should have taken—

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a modest but important Bill, as I indeed said on Second Reading. We wonder why it should have detained the House on Monday and the Committee for a very large part of Tuesday and for another period, either Tuesday or Wednesday, which is a matter yet to be resolved.

Mr. Ross: This allegedly modest Bill has vast consequences. That is why we have been here since 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. That is why we were here until 7 o'clock the night before. We have been on a very restricted timetable. Will the hon. Gentleman please remember that that which appears modest is in fact most immodest?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I will not tolerate such behaviour. Perhaps I was distracted because I was speaking to another hon. Gentleman. I do not want to hear any comments about the Bill in its entirety. We are speaking about a very narrow matter.

Mr. Hughes: Having also laboured through Monday and Tuesday, and whatever it is now, I certainly do not intend to go over what is already on the record, such as my contribution on Monday, when I said what sort of Bill it is.
We have a clear position—which we addressed on Monday—which relates specifically to the clause, namely, that it is right that Members of the Irish Senate should be able to be Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is one of the anomalies that we have inherited and has been the position for quite some time. As Ministers and colleagues have said, there have been Members of this House who have been Members of the Senate of the Irish Parliament. Indeed, the law was changed some 10 years ago to accommodate that fact.
The second point is that it was clearly illogical to have legislation—why it should come up to be debated now is a separate question—that said that if one was in the Irish Senate one could be in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but if one was in the other House of the Irish Parliament one could not. Therefore, it was perfectly proper that a Bill should come before us addressing both issues, and this Bill, in fairness to the Government, does address both. It retains the right of a Senate Member to be in the Northern Ireland Assembly and it adds the right of a Member of the Dail to be in that Assembly.

Mr. Brady: Whether correct or not, surely there is an argument that there is a distinction, in that a Member of the Senate does not have all of the constituency responsibilities that a Member of the Dail may have, and therefore the effect in terms of conflict of interest and conflict in the daily workload of a Member might be very different.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is half right. As we learned from a mini-seminar earlier, certain Members of


the Senate are elected—those who come from the university electorate in Ireland—and there are certain Members of this Parliament who are not elected, not at this end of the building but at the other end. In that sense, both Parliaments have unelected and elected Members; both Parliaments contain Members with constituents and Members without them. Therefore—if the hon. Gentleman is making a Westminster Parliament point in comparison to a Dublin Parliament point—there is no logical reason for there not to be a parallel view on whether people can be members of both legislatures. Clause 3, however, does not deal with that point. It deals only with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Dail point, which is different.

Mr. Brady: Nevertheless, it is not anomalous, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that the legislation as it stands should remain. Is he arguing that, merely because some members of the Irish Senate have been elected, they have a responsibility to represent their constituents as Members of this House have a responsibility, or is it simply that they are selected to be Members of the Assembly by virtue of an election, but then sit there without a responsibility to represent people?

Mr. Hughes: I will no go far down that road, but I will say that before the hon. Gentleman was born—indeed, before I was born—the House contained people who had been elected to represent university seats, as the Irish Parliament still does. That was the last unusual way in which the franchise was altered for the purposes of this place. In this instance, however, I think that we should focus on the narrower question of whether it is right to have legislation that enables Members of the Senate also to be Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
By passing clause 1, we have already said that Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Members of the United Kingdom Parliament should not be disqualified from membership of the Irish Parliament. It follows from that that clause 3 is logical: without it, the same provision exists in two separate Acts, which is surely a nonsense.

Mr. Nicholls: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, at least on this occasion, but does he really feel that he is on safe ground in praying in aid the university example that used to exist in this country? Even in the case of those with a dual franchise, members of the legislature had sworn allegiance to the same head of state. Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the unanswerable conflict that must permeate this and every other debate on the Bill? We are talking about people swearing allegiance to two different heads of state, and that is why the whole Bill fails.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not reply to that point because it goes

wide of the clause that we are discussing. So far, the hon. Gentleman has remained in order and I would not like him to stray as a result of that intervention.

Mr. Hughes: Let me say gently to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that, had he laboured as long on the Committee as some of us, he would know that we have already been around that course—as you rightly pointed out, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will give way for the last time.

Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman says that it is anomalous for the same provision to be made in more than one statute. I suggest that that is not unreasonable, and I shall give just one example. The Protestant succession is enshrined in no fewer than six Acts of Parliament that would have to be repealed were a change to be made.

Mr. Hughes: I did not know that, but I am willing to take it as read for the time being. Perhaps the Government will come up with another little constitutional four-clauser to deal with the Act of Succession, and that will be proposed as a modest amendment to the Bill. Once we have looked at it we may discover, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has suggested, that it is not such a modest amendment after all.

Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Only as an absolute exception, because the right hon. Gentleman is a right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is one of the few occasions in this Parliament on which Her Majesty's Privy Councillorship has come in handy.
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that clause 3 is redundant, in that it replicates a provision that already exists in clause 1? Does he wish it to be removed because it is redundant, or does he believe that it is incompatible with other provisions? I could accept the removal of clause 3 if it were inconsistent or contradictory. Why does he think it necessary to remove it if it is compatible, but merely redundant?

Mr. Hughes: The answer is that clause 1 does not deal with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In fact, it deals only with two other Acts—

Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Clause 3 deals with section 36(5), not section 35. It is important to get that right.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate.

Mr. Hughes: It was not a point of order, but I stand corrected. Section 36(5) is repealed by clause 3 and is not dealt with in clause 1, which deals only with the two disqualification Acts. Although it deals with the same Act—the 1998 Act—clause 2 does not deal with that


provision. However, amending the disqualification Acts means that we do not need the Northern Ireland Act provision.
The three lines reveal that the Government have no coherent constitutional agenda.

Mr. Maclean: That is just like the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Hughes: It is absolutely not like the Liberal Democrats.
If the Government bring before Parliament a Bill to change the constitutional position of Members of the Senate and Northern Ireland Assembly, and have to come back to the House less than two years later to look at the legislation again, that suggests that it was not a thought-through, planned element of the constitutional jigsaw.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Not for the minute.
The complaint that I made on Second Reading applies specifically to the clause—namely, it is here because the Government self-evidently have come belatedly, and for no reason yet given, to get us to amend the constitution—which may be logical in itself, but would more logically have been done by looking at the same time at Northern Ireland and its relationship with the other four parts of the United Kingdom and with Ireland. We should do it all together. We are not doing so. It does not help constitutional logic and order to come back time after time, taking one bit of constitutional change at a time. I hope that the Government have more coherence in future.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I have been here all night. My commiserations go to you and to your colleagues. I do not need any lectures from Opposition Members.
The point of order that I want to raise is simple. On a number of occasions, Madam Speaker has expressed concern about how the public view the House. I wonder how people will view the House when they see how the debate has been prolonged. It is an important Bill—I do not deny that for one moment—but it need not have gone all through the night and still continue now. It does the House no service for the public to see a Tory-organised filibuster, which brings discredit on the House.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman missed what I said. It was not a point of order.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I call Mr. Ross.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman want to contribute to the debate?

Mr. Ross: I want to raise a point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may continue.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that it was a Tory-organised filibuster. This Bench is occupied not by Tories or Conservatives, but Ulster Unionists.

The First Deputy Chairman: I have just stated that it was not a point of order.

Mr. Thompson: I welcome the debate on clause 3. However, it is unfortunate that it is the third clause in the Bill. It would have been better if it had been the first and that the Bill contained no other clauses. If that had happened, this Bill would have been a proper Disqualifications Bill.
11 am
The clause would repeal section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the fact that, two years after passage of that legislation, the Government are seeking to repeal section 36(5) is a reflection on their planning. The provision was included in the 1998 Act to deal with an anomaly.

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend, like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), is saying that two years have elapsed since passage of the 1998 Act, but that is incorrect. The Act received Royal Assent on 19 November 1998. Therefore, within 13 months Ministers had already started the process of amending the Act.

Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his very useful intervention. The time elapsed has, therefore, been only one and a half years.
The provision was intended to deal with an anomaly. One might therefore ask what abuse it was supposed to deal with and what was happening that required its introduction. It was introduced because the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) had been appointed to the Senate, but subsequently discovered that he would have to resign from it to become a Northern Ireland Assembly Member. The provision was therefore included in the 1998 Bill to facilitate the minority in Northern Ireland and to ensure that, in future, other hon. Members could be so appointed.
The issue arises because the Republic of Ireland still claims that Northern Ireland is part of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the Republic exercised what it considered to


be its right to appoint people from Northern Ireland to its Senate—to give the impression, of course, that it is an all-Ireland Government.

Mr. Fabricant: We all realise that the Republic of Ireland's constitution has been changed and that it now makes no claim on the territory of Northern Ireland. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is still claiming jurisdiction, but not territory?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is really going well beyond the scope of clause 3. I also remind the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson)—he was in the Chamber when I made the initial ruling—that we cannot get into the detail of the Senate, how it is elected and why the legislation was introduced. Not only was the substance of clause 3 debated in clause 1, but it is a consequential repeal. The clause's substance is therefore very narrow indeed.

Mr. Thompson: I listened to your ruling on the matter, Mr. Martin, and I am conscious that I have to walk a very narrow and straight path. Many of us, however, have found it difficult to keep to the straight and narrow.
The Government, by introducing this Bill and including in it more than one clause, are increasing the anomalies and creating one even greater anomaly. I therefore believe that, in passing the Bill, rather than making the situation better, we shall be making it worse.
The provision's inclusion in the 1998 Act was an act of appeasement by Ministers. This Bill, however, is an even greater act of appeasement.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot talk about the Bill in its entirety. Has he now finished?

Mr. Thompson: I have, Mr. Martin.

Mr. MacKay: I rise to say a few brief words about clause 3. You have ruled, Mr. Martin—and rightly—that the clause is closely related to clause 1. Some would say that it is consequential to what we have decided in that clause. However, the clause would repeal section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so it is worth pausing this morning—unless this morning turns out to be this evening, Mr. Martin, according to your ruling—to look at what that section did.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is a politician for whom I have the highest regard. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have, rightly, commended the First Minister on a number of occasions in our deliberations, and it would be wrong of me not to take this opportunity to state that we hold the Deputy First Minister in equally high regard. I see that the Under-Secretary is nodding his agreement with that. Together, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are taking the Executive forward. We hope and pray that a real start will be made to decommissioning in the few days left of this month, and that they can continue their work.
However, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh sat in the Senate of the Irish Republic. After being elected to an earlier Northern Ireland Assembly, he was subsequently debarred. At the time, hon. Members of all parties considered that to be a great pity. It would have been a great shame if his excellent work in the current Assembly and the Executive had not continued.
We have nothing but the highest regard for the hon. Gentleman, but we should judge not an individual, but the rights and wrongs of whether a Member of the Irish Senate should also sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I seem to recall that you, Mr. Martin, were involved, as was I, in the progress through the House of the 1998 Act. The circumstances then were not dissimilar to those that obtain now. We were rushing the legislation through, and we were right to do so. That piece of emergency legislation was an essential part of the Belfast agreement process. It has worked most satisfactorily, and only last month spawned the Executive. We all hope that that will remain in being, although that depends on the paramilitaries fulfilling their part of the bargain and starting decommissioning.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going wide of what I have already stated is a very narrow clause.

Mr. MacKay: As always, I am obliged to you, Mr. Martin. I was making a passing reference to the establishment of the Assembly as a means of making the point that section 36(5) was ill-thought-out by the House. I make no special complaint about that, as I know that the legislation was being rushed through at the time.
If I may say so, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) succinctly made the point that it is anomalous to allow someone from the Irish Senate to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly but not in the other part of the Dail which, as he rightly said, is the fully elected part of the Dail. Either everyone should be allowed to sit, or no one.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I have clashed in the nicest possible way about speedy legislation. That illustrates that even with the best will in the world, when it is necessary to have speedy legislation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) questions, from a sedentary position, whether this is speedy legislation. Without trespassing on your ruling, Mr. Martin, I feel that I must respond to the hon. Gentleman, who is now shaking his head as well. Yes, it is speedy—it is not normal to have a Second Reading followed the next day by the Committee stage, Report and possibly even Third Reading. It is normal to leave at least a week in between those stages of a Bill so that we can consider the amendments that have been tabled and the contributions made on Second Reading. That, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who has not been in his place for most of the debate—

Mr. Andrew Miller: Nor have Conservative Members.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman says that nor have most of my hon. Friends, but they are not intervening from a sedentary position. If they did, I would make the


same point to them, because I believe that my criticism should always be even-handed, and I know that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston would want nothing less.
I apologise, Mr. Martin, because the hon. Gentleman distracted me, and I fear that I am moving wide of the amendment.

Mr. Bercow: You, Mr. Martin, have already advised us that clause 3 is tightly drawn and that we should focus our debate exclusively on it. My right hon. Friend will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—when he, rather briefly, set the scene for the debate—explained that he had not yet decided whether to endorse the clause. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) first entered the House in 1977; he is a very experienced parliamentarian. I wonder whether he could explain the merits or otherwise—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Mr. MacKay.

Mr. MacKay: If my hon. Friend is patient for just a moment, he will have the answer. My precise and straightforward reason for rising is to comment on the clause. I shall not be tempted to do so in detail, because I sense that you wish the Committee to proceed, Mr. Martin. I see the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) nodding, and I agree with him entirely. In an act of bipartisan conciliation, Whips and ex-Whips like to stick together.
I want to return to the point that I was making to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Our disagreement is over the speed of the Bill; the biggest disagreement is that we believe that rushing legislation by having a Committee stage straight after Second Reading results in bad legislation. Clause 3 repeals section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I submit to the Under-Secretary that that measure was rushed, for understandable reasons, and we now have to repeal it. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey clearly said in his helpful contribution, it was an anomalous piece of legislation. I ask the Under-Secretary to reflect on that when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He has rightly said that the clause is a narrow and consequential one which merely removes section 36(5) from the 1998 Act. It has, essentially, the same effect as clause 1. We have had a prolonged debate on the clause, and we have spent about 18 hours, if not more, debating the Bill. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's claim that the Bill is being rushed through is increasingly untenable.

Mr. MacKay: I am not sure whether I can respond to much of the Minister's intervention; I suspect that I would be largely out of order if I did so. As you did not rule the Minister out of order, Mr. Martin, I am put in a difficult position, so perhaps I might trespass briefly in responding to him. Otherwise, his comments will be included in Hansard—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister was out of

order in straying from the clause—[Interruption.] The First Deputy Chairman has been working such long hours that he is a little slower than he was last night. My ruling is that the right hon. Gentleman does not need to respond to the Minister because the Minister was out of order.

Mr. MacKay: I am grateful, Mr. Martin. As someone who has also been involved throughout the Committee's proceedings, I am sympathetic. All of us are slowing up; it is taking me longer than I want to reach my conclusion.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a pity that the Minister is audible when he is out of order, but inaudible when he is in order?

Mr. MacKay: I like to think that I have a good relationship with the Minister, so it would be wrong for me to respond to my hon. Friend. It would be for the House and for you, Mr. Martin, to judge whether his observations are accurate. It would be wrong for me to comment.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that the First Deputy Chairman said that he was a bit slow. That means that he is tired. At one time, there used to be only one Speaker, who had to sit in the Chair—without food—for hours. That was a cruel way to do business. I think that we are being cruel to the present occupants of the Chair. Would it not be a good idea if the business of the House were suspended for about an hour, to give them a rest?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a matter for debate.

Mr. MacKay: You pre-empted me, Mr. Martin. I was about to say that I did not think it was a matter for me—it is a matter for you. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who first entered the House in—

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. You ruled that my earlier remarks were not a matter for debate. However, I am concerned for your welfare. Perhaps you should reconsider my suggestion and suspend the sitting so that you can have a rest and a cup of tea.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am touched by the hon. Gentleman's concern for my welfare. However, it would best be served if the Committee remained within the narrow confines of clause 3.

Mr. MacKay: I am obliged to you, Mr. Martin. As you will have noted, I am desperately trying to conform to your ruling.
The crux of the point that I have been making is that section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the repeal of which I am minded to support, was part of rushed legislation. A genuine misunderstanding has arisen,


because if you are somewhat tired, Mr. Martin, the Under-Secretary must also be tired. He has been sitting on the Treasury Bench for about 15 or 16 hours—

Mr. Mike O'Brien: rose—

Mr. MacKay: May I complete my point? I want to give way to the Minister, but I have been interrupted so often—[Interruption.] May I have some protection in order to complete the point?
There is a misunderstanding. The rushing of a Bill does not refer to the number of hours allocated for its debate; it refers to the time for reflection that is allowed between Second Reading and Committee.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is definitely straying away from the confines of clause 3.

Mr. MacKay: I wholly accept your comments, Mr. Martin. There was a misunderstanding that I needed to rectify, but I shall now give way to the Minister.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He has expressed his support for clause 3, which is consequential on clause 1. Does he also support clause 1?

Mr. MacKay: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not need to indicate any support for clause 1. We have passed clause 1; that is done and dusted. We are now on clause 3.

Mr. MacKay: I am obliged, Mr. Martin, because I thought that we were on clause 3 and I thought that we had voted on clause 1—which would have given the Under-Secretary an answer. I want to help the Under-Secretary. I suspect that, at this very late hour of Tuesday—I believe that it has been ruled that we are still on Tuesday; it would be an early hour of Wednesday if we were in Westminster Hall—the Minister is trying to tease out of me why I voted against clause 1 yet am minded to support clause 3. He is probably about to say that there is a lack of logic.
It is very important that I put the record straight, because I would not want the Under-Secretary to think that there is a lack of logic, and I certainly would not wish it to be recorded in Hansard. My right hon. and hon. Friends voted against clause 1 because each of the essential amendments to the clause was ignored, with uncharacteristic arrogance, by the Under-Secretary and his counterpart at the Northern Ireland Office. I hope that I have put the record straight. Unless the Under-Secretary wants to intervene, I shall move on.

Mr. Brady: I do not believe that this is truly a consequential clause. Because the two are not exclusive, it is perfectly possible for the relevant clause of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to sit alongside the new legislation that the Government are trying to put in place.

You acquiesced in that point, Mr. Martin. Therefore, it is surely spurious to argue that we cannot take a different view on each measure.

Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to be fair to the Under-Secretary because it is a very late hour in the debate and I may have been slightly careless and unfair by inferring what he was about to say, not relating what he had said. My hon. Friend makes a particularly good point because we lost the vote and, sadly, clause 1 was ordered to stand part of the Bill. Therefore, as we have clause 1—unamended, which we believe to be a grave mistake—there seems to be some merit in having clause 3.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacKay: Just a moment. I owe it to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) to answer him fully. This clause is consequential. As we have clause 1, with all its warts—there are real warts because our amendments were not accepted—there is some merit in including clause 3 in the Bill as well, largely for the reasons that I have outlined.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Brady: rose—

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. MacKay: I give way again to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Mr. Brady: I may be prepared to concede, as my right hon. Friend argues so cogently, that this clause is consequential in the technical sense, but will he at least confirm that it is not necessary and that we could easily pass the Bill into United Kingdom law without it?

Mr. MacKay: I do not want to be drawn too far on that, because although I believe that the matter is in order I am not necessarily qualified to answer. I am not a parliamentary draftsman. However, if I was being asked my opinion—which I believe I was—I would say that the clause was probably unnecessary and that the Bill could have had at least one fewer clause, in which case we could have made more progress.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for offering an opinion as to whether the clause might be necessary, but will he concede that the person who is being paid to tell us whether it is necessary is the Under-Secretary, who, despite drawing a not inconsiderable salary, gabbled his way through what should have been a justification, so that we still have not heard the Government's justification in an audible way that is also in order?

Mr. MacKay: I do not want to pursue my hon. Friend's point, as that is a matter for others to decide. However, he makes an important point when he says that some people are paid to know the answers while others are not. Members of the shadow Cabinet are unpaid and receive no more than Opposition Back Benchers. The Neill committee or the Senior Salaries Review Body might


want to consider that matter. However, I will not trespass further on that point, although it is something about which I feel strongly.

Mr. Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt—and given the Opposition's commitment to legislation being as short as possible—will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in his judgment, no negative consequences would flow from a decision by the Committee to exclude clause 3 from the Bill?

Mr. MacKay: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I am insufficiently professionally qualified to answer that. Nor do I have the financial resources, with the limited amount of Short money, to be able to be advised in the way that Ministers are.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. MacKay: I would like to answer the point that has been raised, rather than be interrupted. Unlike some hon. Members, I have not had any sleep for at least 36 hours, and I would appreciate taking one point at a time.
I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has been in the Committee throughout, and I do not wish to imply that he—unlike some hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—is a Johnny-come-lately to the Committee. My hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham, for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—along with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney)—have been stalwarts throughout the debate.
I suspect that if we voted the new clause down, the Bill would be unaffected and there would be no negative consequences.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: rose—

Mr. MacKay: The Minister, with the benefit of all his advisers and his considerable salary, wants to give us an answer.

Mr. O'Brien: I want to ensure that no hon. Members feel that they have been short-changed. Clause 3 provides for the repeal of section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which merely has the effect of allowing a Member of the Irish Senate to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Clause 1 has the same effect, so section 36(5) is no longer needed. Therefore, it is merely tidy draftsmanship to ensure that the Bill is clear.

Mr. MacKay: I am deeply grateful to the Minister for that intervention, which leads me to believe that it is safe to have the clause in the Bill. Equally, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham that we are equally safe if we wish to remove the clause. My hon. Friend may

have a dilemma as to which way to vote, but that is a decision for him. I am agnostic and relaxed about this matter.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend has been present throughout the Committee, so I am happy to give way to him.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend shows characteristic generosity. He will be aware that, with all the resources available to it, even the Home Office's explanatory notes state that the clause is "no longer needed". Section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which will be repealed by clause 3, is about the ability to allow a Member of the Senate only to become a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. What does my right hon. Friend believe was the original reason for that? Why were Senators allowed to become Members when Members of the lower House were not? We need to know that before we can make our decision on—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to know that.

Mr. MacKay: I shall not be tempted down that road, particularly as I commented on the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who raised exactly the same point.
On balance, I am coming down in favour of supporting the retention of the clause. It was anomalous in the first place, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey rightly pointed out, to allow a Member of the Senate, and not a Member of the elected Dail, to become a Member of the Assembly.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacKay: Certainly. I always like to give way to fellow Privy Councillors.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is the second time this morning that being a member of the Privy Council has been of benefit to me.
I am worried that my right hon. Friend may have misguided himself. He has concluded that, because he lost his argument on clause 1, clause 3 is merely consequential and that it would be consistent to remove it. Does he think that it is essential to remove it, or does he think that it would be inconsistent with the purposes of clause 1 if it were to stay and that that would render the Bill unintelligible?

Mr. MacKay: I am at least grateful to my right hon. Friend for thinking that I have misled only myself, and not the House or other hon. Members. After all my years in the House, I would be hurt to the quick to think that a


Privy Council colleague thought that I had misled the House and other hon. Members. I suspect that I mislead myself a lot of the time—

Mr. Tom Levitt: That is a qualification for the right hon. Gentleman's job.

Mr. MacKay: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is almost a qualification. I am happy to agree with him.

Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I am concerned that two references have been made to the fact that privilege was given to members of the Privy Council when interventions were accepted. Am I not right in thinking that the Modernisation Committee recently ruled that no precedence should be given to members of the Privy Council?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I call the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), who has taken an interest in the Committee in a quasi-professional capacity—he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Home Office—almost suggested in a bipartisan spirit that misleading ourselves was the attribute of everyone in the House. However, I was saddened that he applied that attribute to Conservative Members only. I am sure that, on reflection, and in the spirit of the debate, he will wish to withdraw his remark.
I see no harm in the clause, but, equally, I see no harm in its removal from the Bill. I am agnostic. I started in that position and, after misleading myself several times during my speech, I remain in that position.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: On the ground that it is better to be safe than sorry, I shall declare an interest. The clause is about the Irish Senate. If my understanding is correct, I qualify to be appointed to the Irish Senate by virtue of my Belfast birth. That is not an honour that I have sought or, much less, turned down. However, under the Irish legislation that was in force when I was born, I may have an interest to declare. I say "may" because I am not clear about whether Ireland's repudiation of articles 2 and 3 of its constitution, which arose from the Belfast agreement, affects my status and my eligibility to be appointed. However, on the grounds that it is better to be safe than sorry, I draw that point to the attention of the Committee.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, the issue we are debating arose out of the case of a real person, not a theoretical discussion. It was a matter of practical politics, because the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was a member of the previous Assembly and was appointed to the Irish Senate. That fact in itself lends a degree of credence to—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have said before that the substance of this matter has been debated in relation to clause 1. An argument such as that advanced by the right hon. Gentleman would have been perfectly

acceptable in that context, but it is not in a debate on clause 3 stand part. Clause 3 is consequential on the Committee having approved clause 1.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin. Not only do I take full note of and accept your ruling, but I offer you my assurance that I was not deliberately attempting to stray outside rulings that you and your colleagues have generously, graciously and, indeed, patiently given the Committee during the past few hours. I was trying to reassure the Committee and you that there is a matter of substance to be discussed, arising out of a real case.
It is interesting that the 1998 Act distinguished between the lower House and the Irish Senate. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) pointed out, that matter was signed, sealed and settled 12 months ago and it has now been reopened. Were I to stray into the reasons for that reopening, you would rule me out of order, Mr. Martin, because we debated such matters—albeit unsatisfactorily—in relation to clause 1 and the amendments thereto.
Nevertheless, it is interesting that section 1(1)(e) of the 1975 Act—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I happen to have a copy with me—makes no distinction between the two Houses. In the 1998 Act, which set up the Assembly, a distinction was made. It is that distinction that is addressed by clause 3, which repeals section 36(5) of the 1998 Act.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst helpfully directed the Committee's attention to the nature of the Irish Senate, and he compared it to the nature of the Dail and of the House of Commons. So as not to stray from your guidance, Mr. Martin, I shall rest my case on the erudite and convincing arguments that my right hon. Friend advanced at that time. The Committee is being invited to assume that it is acceptable for Members of the Irish Senate to have an involvement in our elected affairs, even though some of them may not have previous elected experience.
The clause refers to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which in turn refers to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. I remind the Committee of section 1(1), which states:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person is disqualified for membership of the House of Commons who for the time being"—
I move on to paragraph (e)—
is a member of the legislature of any country or territory outside the"—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but we debated


the matter that he is raising under clause 1. As I have said, clause 3 is narrow. All these matters have been debated under clause 1 and we cannot go over them again.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Martin. Actually, I was not going to debate the matter.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may not intend to debate it, but this is a matter of words. To make mention of the issue would bring him outwith the rules.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I apologise, Mr. Martin. I want to stay inside the loop. Outside it is not where I wish to be, not least because that is a place of less influence than inside it—that is, unless the loop is round one's neck.
Clause 3 refers specifically to section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act. The first part of the section refers to the Northern Ireland Disqualification Act 1975. That is how I reached that piece of legislation. It refers to countries outside the Commonwealth. Were I to suggest that by clause 3 the Government were signalling their antipathy to the burgeoning debate about whether Ireland should or should not rejoin the Commonwealth, you, Mr. Martin, would rule me out of order, so I shall not do so—except to make the point that the thought occurred to me. As we have had difficulty—nay, I say charitably that it has been an impossibility—trying to ascertain what the clause is all about and what the Government are seeking to achieve from it, you will understand, Mr. Martin, that various interpretations have occurred to the Committee, even if it has not been possible to pursue them because of the rules of order, which I welcome and entirely accept.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has pointed to the connection between the two Acts that are referred to in the Bill. He has correctly identified the change that took place in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which a year later we are repealing. What is it that necessitated the inclusion of the Irish Senate in the 1998 Act, which was not referred to previously and which we now see—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot debate that matter.

Mr. Bercow: But we would like an answer.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who interjected from a sedentary position. We cannot debate the matter but we would like an answer. When the Minister replies, he might be tempted to respond to the concern that both my hon. Friends have expressed.
11.45 am
We come to the question of why the clause is necessary. There is a prima facie case. The Government have tried to direct us along their road by including, in small type, in the margins of the Bill, the words "Consequential repeal". It is not the first rule of Opposition to believe what the Government tell them to believe. If it were, there would be no Committee stage; we would simply nod legislation through on the inaudible say of the Under-Secretary.
The Government believe that clause 3 is simply consequential.

Mr. Brady: My right hon. Friend contradicts himself a little. First, he claimed that the Government said that the amendment was consequential. He now claims to know what the Government think. There is a major difference between what the Government think and what they say. Our debates have clearly revealed that they do not say what they think.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend's preamble almost upset me. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, it would grieve me if my hon. Friends thought that I was misleading them or myself. However, I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) made. Today of all days—no, today is still Tuesday—but when we reach Wednesday, my local paper will reflect my hon. Friend's point. The Government say one thing and do another.
Whatever the Government believe, they want us to believe that clause 3 is simply a consequential repeal.

Mr. William Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that another anomaly has arisen about the day? It is Tuesday in the Chamber, but Wednesday in the Table Office.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will not want to comment on that, because he is considering clause 3.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My self-discipline and anxiety to remain inside the Chair's loop is such that I would not have responded to my hon. Friend's valid point.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's contention that the Government's description of clause 3 as consequential does not automatically mean that it is, is supported by clause 1. He will have noticed the wording in the margin, which states:
Amendment of section 1(1)(e) of the Disqualification Acts.
However, on closer inspection, the clause provides for qualification in some circumstances, not disqualification.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes an important point—

Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. The First Deputy Chairman ruled that the clause was consequential on clause 1. I am sure that you can confirm that and thus show that that is not only the Government's contention but that of the Chair.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Those matters can safely be left to the Chair.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful for that ruling. I intervened earlier to try to reassure the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that our biting criticism of the Government's handling of the measure was not personal. However, given the intervention of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, I shall


not necessarily want to be so generous to him. The Chair dealt with the substantive point but I have been speaking a short time and at no point did the Chair tell me to sit down because my remarks were unacceptable or inappropriate in terms of order. When Mr. Martin drew boundaries around interventions made by my hon. Friends, the Minister heard me tell me Mr. Martin that I would not be tempted to go outside Mr. Martin's loop—precisely because I was making a determined effort to stay within the ruling of the Chair. I was addressing my remarks, all of them pertinent thus far, to clause 3.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Of course I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Fabricant: Would it be helpful to remind my right hon. Friend that on both occasions that the Minister intervened, Mr. Martin said that the Minister was out of the loop and out of order?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend's point will be recorded in Tuesday's Hansard and the record will speak for itself.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Of course.

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically personal. If he listened carefully to my attempted point of order, it related not to the comments of the right hon. Gentleman but to a point made by one of his right hon. Friends.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, clause 3 does fit with clause 1, which has already been dealt with at some length. Clause 3 renders one section of the 1998 Act obsolete. It is purely and simply a tidying-up measure and should be dealt with in that way.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. A fog of confusion has descended on the Committee in the last few minutes as a result of the interplay of interventions and your ruling, which was intended to be helpful. Can we be clear that it is perfectly legitimate for the Committee to approve the Bill with clause 1 but to judge that it wishes to exclude clause 3? If that is not the case, what is the purpose of a clause 3 stand part debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that we deal with one clause at a time. The Committee has dealt with clause 1 and is now considering clause 3. I have

explained the relationship between them and how tightly drawn is clause 3. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will heed my words.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Lord. You and Mr. Martin before you, have made it clear that clause 3 is tightly drawn. You added the observation that the clause is consequential. That is the Government's contention. We are debating, I hope while remaining in order, whether the Government's contention persuades the Committee to allow clause 3 to remain part of the Bill.
I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. I am sorry that he thinks that I was uncharacteristically brusque. I was seeking to encourage him to remain within the spirit that has pervaded the debates on this Bill since about 5.30 pm on calendar Tuesday. I take his remarks in that spirit and thank him for what I judge to be a new Labour apology.
My first point is that the clause has substance because the debate arose not from a theoretical discussion about constitutional history or propriety, but in the person of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). That is a real issue, and I add my appreciation of the hon. Gentleman—with whom I have a personal friendship—to those already expressed. My second point, which has been commonly accepted on both sides of the Committee and which I believe to be in order, is that the clause refers to the 1998 Act, which, at the relevant point, refers to the 1975 Acts. Through that, we have traced to the Bill a divergence between the Irish Senate, on which it focuses, and the other House, which is elected, and the difference between the Senate and this House, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) so helpfully brought to the Committee's attention.
I return to my third point, which concerns whether the repeal of the clause is, as the Government would have us believe, a minor, technical measure consequential on clause 1, which we have already debated and voted on—it is part of the Bill, so I shall not stray into that territory—or whether other significance is attached to it that might persuade the Committee that it is worth retaining.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that he could see the Government's argument that the repeal is purely consequential, but asked whether it is necessary to keep the clause to maintain what the Government claim is the integrity of the Bill. I am not convinced that it is, so let us consider what would happen in the unlikely event—I grant the Minister that it would be unlikely—of their losing the vote on clause stand part. I assume that my right hon. and hon. Friends will ensure that a vote takes place.
If the clause is deleted, will the integrity of what the Government are trying to achieve be damaged? My judgment is that it will not. Clause 1—which we have debated and voted on and therefore cannot revisit—deals with the qualifications pertaining to membership of the House, but the Government have seen fit in clause 3 to draw special attention to the Irish Senate. I continue to ask myself why. Is it simply because the repeal is consequential or ought we to consider something further?

Mr. Fabricant: The Government's explanatory notes are brief and simply say:
Section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is no longer needed",
implying redundancy. To reply to my right hon. Friend's point, it may be safely assumed that if it is redundant, it does not matter whether the clause is repealed.

12 noon

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he puts beautifully the idea that I have been struggling to convey to the Committee.
Our experience with this Government is that they say one thing and do another. Our experience of this Government in the context of clause 3 is that within 12 months they have changed their mind on a significant constitutional issue.
Despite our best efforts in always seeking to stay on the right side of you and your colleagues in the Chair, Mr. Lord, the Government have flatly refused to explain to us why we are now where we are. We cannot open that debate again; that is your ruling, and I accept it, so I will not try to reopen it. But this leaves my right hon. and hon. Friends with a difficulty.
In an earlier debate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) encouraged the Minister to be open and explain what lay behind the Government's apparent volte-face in 12 months with respect to the Irish legislature, among other things. He has refused to do that. His refusal in this debate was, though clearly within order, edging towards contempt of the Committee.
Therefore, I hope, Mr. Lord, that you will understand that we might be persuaded when the Minister winds up that this is but a consequential amendment. All of us wish to make progress and get on to the meatier debates on clause 4 stand part and on the new clauses, not to mention Third Reading. So if the Minister took the advice of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, came clean with the Committee and gave us an explanation, we might accept his argument that this was a consequential repeal.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to my right hon. Friend with great care. He is certainly reflecting the unhappiness that I feel, because is it not right that members of Her Majesty's Opposition should seek whatever opportunity offers itself to try to find out what lies behind the Bill, its purpose? If the Government are not prepared to come clean with the Committee, despite the strictures of the Chair, has not the Committee a duty to seek every opportunity to ascertain precisely the objective and purpose of the Bill? The Government to date have not come clean with us.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Mr. Lord, you would want me to respond to my hon. Friend by not going down the constitutional path that he has opened up, save perhaps to say that his point is valid and important, and that the matter that he raises is, frankly, impeding the Committee's understanding of clause 3 and consequently holding up our progress.
I reiterate that when the Minister winds up, he will find that I at least am willing to be persuaded that the clause is merely consequential. If he were to treat the Committee

with contempt and not seek to respond to the serious points raised since his brief and unsatisfactory earlier intervention, we shall face a dilemma.
We suspect that, given the change in fundamental Government thinking between their Act of only 12 months ago and this Bill, there is more to this than meets the eye. Unless the Minister tackles that head on, I for one will want to listen to the other speeches made by my right hon. and hon. Friends and draw my own conclusion about how to vote when the matter is put to the vote.

Mr. Maclean: When I first looked at the Disqualifications Bill—an oddly named Bill, but perhaps we shall deal with that in the next clause stand part debate—and at clause 3, I looked, as one perhaps inevitably does, at the note in the margin, relating in this case to "Consequential repeal". It was tempting to assume that the clause was a tidying-up measure, consequent on some other aspect of the Bill; so I read the Bill more thoroughly. After I had read clause 1, clause 3 still did not make much sense unless I looked at precisely what it said. What it says is that it repeals section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
I acquired a copy of the 1998 Act, and turned to section 36. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said, that also refers to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. The Act is relevant, but I do not need or wish to refer to it for the purpose of my remarks about whether we should retain clause 3.
Having skipped the clauses dealing with Lord Lieutenants and membership of the House of Commons, I came to subsection (5), which clause 3 of the Bill proposes to delete. It states:
A person is not disqualified for membership of the Assembly by virtue of subsection (1) by reason only that he is a member of the … Senate of Ireland".

Mr. Robathan: Does not this narrow provision, entitled "Consequential repeal", illustrate very well the law of unforeseen consequences? The Government produced it only 15 months ago.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but he has taken me 20 minutes ahead of my argument. I am grateful to the Government for allowing us to explore the issue, and for not forcing ruthless closures on such an important debate.
Clause 36(5) of the 1998 Act permitted a senator of Ireland to be a member of the Assembly. My hon. Friend asks whether this is indeed a consequential repeal, given that clause 1 of the Bill, which we have already amended, now permits members of the Irish legislature—members of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland—to be Assembly members. We must ask ourselves whether the provision is redundant because it says that members of the senate are no longer disqualified.
The Government say that the clause is merely consequential. They say that we no longer need legislation permitting members of the Irish senate to be members of the Assembly, because clause 1—which we dealt with earlier—covers all members of the legislature, which includes the lower House and the Senate. The Government may be saying, "We do not need clause 3,


because it is already swept up in the more general terminology of the legislation." I am not sure. That is the key question with which I have been wrestling all morning while listening to the debate. I listened to my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It took a few minutes before he was able to encapsulate the essence of his concern. Towards the end of his excellent contribution, I thought that I was content with the Government's proposal that clause 3 should stay in the Bill and that it was merely consequential. Then I listened to the Minister, or I attempted to listen to him. He made the fatal mistake of taking a two-minute contribution and delivering it in about 20 seconds. None of us heard it. When we are dealing with an important clause, deleting legislation that the Government passed only last year and the Minister jumps to the Dispatch Box and does a 20-second gabble, I begin to smell some stinking fish.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have, I think, on three occasions repeated exactly the same phrases about the clause. I repeated them rather quickly because many hon. Members seemed to be taking their time unnecessarily. I then repeated them, using the same words, in two interventions. If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening on each occasion—it is important that hon. Members should listen to the debates, particularly those who have not been up all night—I am sure that he would have understood precisely what I said.

Mr. Maclean: I am sure that you, Mr. Lord, understood it precisely.

Mr. Bercow: I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that, during our relatively brief deliberations, the Minister has fallen into the trap of arguing by advocacy, not by evidence. Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the Minister, during the whirring, washing-machine gabble of a response earlier, did nothing more than assert that clause 3 was consequential on clause 1? What he failed to do, which I was earnestly hoping he would do, was explain how the exclusion of clause 3 would have any deleterious consequence whatever.

Mr. Maclean: As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right in his customarily highly erudite intervention. He makes two valid points. The Minister did not explain why the clause was consequential. He merely asserted it. Well, that is the bit I heard—that it was merely consequential. He said that it followed on: if we enact clause 1, we will need clause 3. There we go. We must have it. It says so in the explanatory memorandum. In effect, he used exactly the same 20 words. He said it, so it must be the case, but there was no explanation from him as to—

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maclean: May I make the point and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
In my limited understanding of the legislation, it seems that, if clause 3 were removed, that would keep extant in legislation section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act, which allows Members of the Senate to be Members of

the Assembly. We would have two pieces of legislation: the 1998 Act allowing Members of the Irish Senate to be Members of the Assembly; and, if it were passed, the Disqualifications Bill, which allows members of the legislature of Ireland to be Members of the Assembly.
I cannot see anything inconsistent in that. I cannot see a potential judicial review case where learned judges will say that Parliament has passed obscure, contradictory legislation. I cannot see any Home Office lawyers advising that the House had introduced a fatal legal flaw because the new, inappropriately named Disqualifications Bill referred to the Irish legislature whereas the 1998 Act referred to the Irish Senate and they were incompatible. There would be no questions as to what to do, or calls for an amendment.
That is the question with which I wish the Minister had dealt. That is the point that arose when I studied clause 3 in detail, referred back to clause 1, which refers to the legislature, and then section 36(5) of the 1998 Act, which was passed only 12 months ago and which we are being asked to repeal.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: My right hon. Friend is now approaching the kernel of the issue. Does he agree that, if every piece of extant legislation that is compatible with and reinforces a new piece of legislation were consequentially to be repealed by new legislation, we should have to go through the entire statute book and repeal great acres of it?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, specifically in relation to clause 3—which is what we are debating, as I should not wish to stray wider than the clause by giving more general examples. Nevertheless, it would be extraordinary for Government lawyers to advise Ministers that we must find every other bit of consistent legislation and repeal it.
What is vital is to repeal inconsistent legislation. If clause 3 were attempting to repeal a part of the 1998 Act that, hypothetically, deliberately disqualified a Senator of the Irish Republic, and if Ministers were leaving that on the statute book, of course there would be an inconsistency. The 1998 Act would be saying, "In no circumstances could a Senator be a Member of the Assembly", whereas the Bill would be saying that Members of the legislature can serve in the Assembly. Clearly that would be inconsistent. However, that is not the situation that we are dealing with.
We are dealing with what seems, prima facie, to be consistent and harmonious legislation. We do not need to repeal section 36(5) of the 1998 Act. I can see absolutely no necessity of repealing it. Technically and legally, it is not inconsistent with clause 1 of the Bill. Moreover, unfortunately, the Minister did not advise us otherwise. However, there is a good chance that we may receive better advice from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the way in which he handles the Committee and the patience that he has in sitting through lengthy debates—some of which he may find tedious, although they are nevertheless important. He responds with grace and courtesy and he tries help the House.
I am certain that we should not now be having this debate, and that—having heard my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—I would have been satisfied had we heard an explanation of the provision from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Even if he had read the same words—but at a decent speed—written by the Home Office, I might have been satisfied by his explanation. Unfortunately, I am not satisfied, because my concerns have been increased by the words in clause 3, by the recently passed words in the 1998 Act, and by the way in which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department handled the matter.
We must therefore ask ourselves why, if section 36(5) is not inconsistent with clause 3, the Government wish to repeal the section? Is there something deeper to the matter? What message do Ministers wish to send by repealing a non-inconsistent clause dealing with Irish Senators and replacing it with clause 3, which deals with Members of the legislature—who could, of course, be Members of either the upper or lower House? Are the Government trying to send a signal on the type of people whom they should like to be elected in future? Are they making an arm's-length judgment that they do not really want senators?

Mr. Ruffley: My right hon. Friend is developing an exceedingly powerful argument. May I draw his attention to the Minister's comments, on Second Reading, in which he refers to section 36(5) of the 1988 Act? Before explaining the need to repeal the section, he states that Members of both Houses of the Irish Parliament cannot become Members of this Parliament. However, he then states:
Section 36(5) of the 1998 Act was the unique exception: that provision can now be repealed by clause 3. The Bill does not single out Northern Ireland for special treatment".—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 27.]
My right hon. Friend has argued that a message of some description was being passed, and I believe that it was contained in the Minister's next phrase, when he said—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made enough of that point in a very long intervention.

Mr. Maclean: I think that my hon. Friend was coming to the nub of a very complex argument, although I accept that you, Mr. Lord, must keep the Committee in order.
I cannot accept the words in the margin of the Bill, nor the Government's garbled explanation that clause 3 is no more than a consequential repeal. We have not heard the Government's argument, but it might be that, if clause 1 deals with the legislature of the Irish Republic, specific reference to the Senate is not needed.
The Government could have chosen a different route. They could have retained a reference to the Senate and added the words "of the Dail" to the existing wording in section 3 of the 1998 Act. However, I cannot explore that fully without straying out of order.
I believe that the Government's decision to omit either reference must mean something. I doubt that the House will ever know what sort of cosy agreement they have reached with the Irish Government, but it seems that the people from the southern Irish legislature who they want to stand for election, or to serve in both Dail and Senate,

or to come and serve here, are Members of the Dail. The Government must have spotted how awful it would be if Members of this House—elected, responsible to constituents, and who take an Oath of Allegiance to Queen and country—had to sit next to people appointed by the five old-boy networks that, with the university seats and some others, provide the membership of the Irish Senate.
The possibility exists that most of the members of the Irish legislature who come to this House could be Senators, and not come from the Dail. Members of the Dail might be too busy with their constituents to participate in the Parliament of another sovereign nation. On the other hand, the Senate is composed of the products of the five appointed, specific interest groups. Senators have a lot of time on their hands and may regard themselves as the ideal candidates to get a proper job here and work alongside elected Members.
Have the Government received any advice from the Government of the Republic of Ireland about permitting Members of either House of the Irish Parliament to stand for election to this House, or to the Northern Ireland Assembly? Senators are more likely than Members of the Dail to be interested in doing that. The Government may be trying to ensure that any Members of the Irish Parliament who end up on these green Benches making legislation for the United Kingdom are members of that lower House. They have greater respectability, because they at least have been elected to a Parliament. That is why the Government want to use clause 3 to repeal section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They wish to delete the part of an Act that they passed only 12 months ago which refers to the Senate.

Mr. Swayne: Is that my right hon. Friend's estimate of what the Minister was telling us, at lightning, breakneck speed?

Mr. Maclean: We do not know—we just do not know. I am sure that with the leave of the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, for whom I have the highest regard, will be able to stand up and, using the same notes—I know how the system works—read the Minister's speech again. We will not complain if the Minister reads the speech in his normal voice, at normal speed, or even if he speaks as quickly as I do. I appreciate that I may sometimes speak too quickly.
It would be better to hear the Government's view on this. I cannot accept that this is a straightforward attempt to tidy up the legislation using a consequential repeal. There is more to it than that. The legislation was initially rushed through at breakneck speed, yet throughout the night the Government have made no effort to advance the debate. Although I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the measure, it is not a solution. We need more time—another day, in fact—in which to deal with clause 3.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made a helpful intervention a few moments ago. Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is not merely a question of us tolerating hearing again what it is important for us to hear and understand—we are virtually in the position of kneeling and praying to hear it? The problem appears to be not merely that the


Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has absented himself from the Chamber—so, apparently, has his speech.

Mr. Maclean: I hope that my hon. Friend's point was in order, Mr. Lord. The Minister has prolonged the debate by the way in which he has treated the House. That was the Government's fault. The Minister has prolonged the debate by making me suspicious, and I am generally not a suspicious chap. The Government have an opportunity to allay my fears and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is nothing more sinister in clause 3 than a simple repeal to tidy up the measure—something that lawyers might, in the normal course of events, advise Ministers to do. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Lord and, in his customary courteous way, reassure us about my concern. I am concerned that there is more to clause 3 than meets the eye.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely good point. He has highlighted the fact that it is the Government's fault that the Committee is not making faster progress on the Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not simply that we expect the Government to present their reason for tabling the clause, but it is custom and tradition that Ministers reply to a debate and then respond to the many issues that are raised in their winding-up speech?

Mr. Maclean: I am sure that the Minister, as an honourable gentleman for whom I have the highest regard, has heard our comments and that, even now, he is champing at the bit to set my fears at rest.
12.30 pm
No doubt the Government will say that the Bill has been debated for many hours. That is not the point. There has been no gap between Second Reading and Committee, and between Committee and Report, for the Bill to be properly considered. That is my concern. Had there been sufficient time to consider the Bill, I might not have these fears about clause 3.
The Government must tell us whether, when section 36(5) of the 1998 Act is repealed, they would prefer to have more Members entering this House from the Irish lower House or from the Senate. Why remove a clause that makes specific reference to Senators, if the Government do not want Senators to enter the House? Why insert the new generic word "legislator", if they do not want Senators? If they simply want to ensure that there is a fair number of Senators—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been doing quite well so far, but he is now in danger of straying from the clause. Will he return to it?

Mr. Maclean: Thank you, Mr. Lord. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).

Mr. Fabricant: I have followed the arguments of my right hon. Friend with considerable interest, especially his view that there is a Machiavellian plot—he may be right.

However, because he was a Home Office Minister, running a Department with high standards, is he falling into the trap of ascribing the same high standards to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department? Might it not just be—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point is not relevant to the clause.

Mr. Maclean: I hear your ruling, Mr. Lord. My hon. Friend made an interesting point, but I shall not take that route. I do not want to make comparisons between Ministers and myself. Under all Governments, civil service staff are generally excellent.
Will the Bill be rendered unworkable if clause 3 remains? That brings me to my next point, because, unless other points that are in order occur to me, I have finished exploring my concerns that the clause is slightly Machiavellian in that it implicitly excludes Senators of the Republic of Ireland, but not Members of the lower House, from sitting on the Benches in this place.

Mr. Gray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a strong parallel between Members of the House of Lords, who legitimately sit in the European Parliament, and Members of the Irish Senate, who legitimately sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is a Second Reading point. I should be grateful if the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) would ignore it.

Mr. Maclean: I shall certainly ignore it in this debate, Mr. Lord. Perhaps it will also be relevant on Third Reading.
Are the Government saying that the Bill will be unworkable if clause 3 remains in it? We should delete inconsistent provisions in previous legislation and insert new clauses in the Bill to make it workable. I disagree with parts of the Bill, but I do not simply want to disagree with the clause. After we lost the argument on the other clauses and on the principle of the Bill—

Mr. Bercow: We lost the vote.

Mr. Maclean: Indeed. Having lost the vote on other parts of the Bill, I do not want to delete clause 3 if it would make the Bill unworkable. However, I have heard nothing from the Government to suggests that the legal advice to Ministers is that, if the Bill is to work, it is vital to pass the clause and thus to delete section 36(5) of the 1998 Act.
I want to try to winkle out whether that would be so. If we do not do so during this relevant debate on clause 3, we can bet our bottom dollar that even the bowdlerised and purged other place will want to pay proper attention to whether the Bill is technically workable.
The Minister must give us the information. Let us suppose that he is minded to accept the argument of my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that clause 3 should be deleted. I may be tempted to support my right hon. Friend on that.
If the Committee deleted clause 3 from the Bill, would the rest of the Bill be unworkable? Would anything in clause 1 be unenforceable or unworkable? The Minister's assertions that it would be untidy to delete clause 3, or that it is consequential and needs to stand part of the Bill, would not constitute an argument. However, if the Minister tells me that unless clause 3 is enacted, the Bill becomes unworkable, unenforceable or contradictory, or that he will again end up on judicial review before their Lordships, I shall accept his argument.

Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maclean: I give way to my increasingly erudite right hon. Friend.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend should be grateful that I am on my feet and compos mentis—at least, I think I am. Will he hazard an explanation as to why Ministers, having listened to his questions, which are so germane to their Bill, are apparently prepared to sit, glued to their seats, with a smug, self-satisfied grin on their faces, and are apparently unprepared to offer the Committee any explanation to answer the questions that my right hon. Friend has posed? If they cannot respond at all, where can the Committee look for guidance?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have no doubt that, in some quarters, in the next few hours or the next few days, Labour Members will complain that my speech was tedious. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] If either of the Under-Secretaries seek to catch your eye, Mr. Lord, to sum up the debate, and promise to take even five minutes explaining what is behind clause 3, reassuring my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that there is nothing sinister, or simply giving us the legal advice that the removal of clause 3 would not render the rest of the Bill unworkable, I shall sit down immediately. I am talking merely to give the Ministers a chance to grab their notes and make that intervention.

Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Maclean: Yes.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is saying in his own way that he is buying time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He is becoming increasingly repetitive. Unless he can move on to fresh ground, perhaps he should think about bringing his remarks to a close.

Mr. Maclean: You anticipate me, Mr. Lord.

Mr. William Ross: The problem is that some of us have very great difficulty in understanding the Bill, and we need it repeated from various points of view to get things absolutely clear in our minds. I fear that we are more obtuse than the Ministers.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is not a Second Reading debate. We are dealing not with the Bill but with a very simple clause.

Mr. Maclean: I had anticipated your intervention, Mr. Lord, because I said a few minutes ago that I would conclude on this point. I was certainly not buying time.
I have given the Ministers a few opportunities to reassure me and I was trying to winkle out answers. If there was repetition, it was to try to make the point to the Government in different ways, and to give them opportunity after opportunity to reassure me that there is nothing Machiavellian in this—that there is nothing incompatible with the rest of the Bill if we delete the clause—and to give me the reassurances that I seek.

Mr. Bercow: Has my right hon. Friend noticed, throughout the deliberations over the past 20 hours or so, that Ministers have intervened several times, entirely properly, in the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends in order to clarify or rebut a point? Therefore, is it not entirely reasonable now to expect that they will intervene in my right hon. Friend's speech to give the commitment that we seek, or simply to nod the head?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That point has been made ad nauseam.

Mr. Maclean: I was concluding my remarks. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) has, indeed, intervened numerous times, usually to tell the Chair how to do its job. No Opposition Member would ever dream of doing so—especially not when you are in the Chair, Mr. Lord.
I am tempted to join my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in challenging clause 3 standing part of the Bill and in voting against it, because I am no longer convinced that it is a simple consequential repeal. There is more to it than meets the eye, and I have been trying to find what lies behind it. Why is the deletion of the term "Irish Senate" done in this way, when it is not incompatible with keeping section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and this clause in the Bill?
If the Minister can reassure me on that point, I may be persuaded to go into the Lobby with him. Otherwise, I shall have to conclude that my right hon. and hon. Friends have put their finger on the nub, that there is more to this than meets the eye and that we ought to reject clause 3.

Mr. William Ross: I have been here constantly for nearly 21 hours—very rarely leaving the Chamber. I have followed the debate as closely as anyone, and I am as dissatisfied now as I was when I first came in to the debate. If we carry on tomorrow, tomorrow will see me still here. That is a part of the duties of a Member of this House: to attend this place, to argue the case for our constituents and to see that the laws that are passed are clear, simple and can be understood even by people such as myself—men of simple mind, and what used to be simple faith. That is no longer true after so long in this place.

Rev. Martin Smyth: One reason why there should not be dual mandates is that folk should be here when proper debates are being held.

Mr. Ross: Indeed, and given that, in some places, different languages are spoken, it is much better to be in a place where English is the mother tongue.

Mr. Bercow: Is not it a matter of the utmost seriousness to us and to the people of this country that even with currently only a single mandate applying, only three Labour Back Benchers are present in the Chamber?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a sensible intervention at this stage.

Mr. Ross: The House will have heard the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and I am sorry that there is so little interest among Government Members in this important Bill. Labour Members should have come to hear the criticism, and the impossibly poor defence that Ministers are making of the Bill. They describe new clause 3 as a consequential amendment.

Mr. Letwin: I am conscious that we should not do a disservice to any hon. Member. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are not in a position to judge whether the Under-Secretary's utterance was an impossibly poor defence or otherwise, as we did not know what was in it?

Mr. Ross: That was the Under-Secretary's last but one defence. Earlier, he had been quite lucid. However, he has been up all night and has been under great strain, trying to think up excuses for what he is trying to ram down people's throats.
The Bill applies more to Northern Ireland than to elsewhere. When I see the words "consequential repeal" in a Bill, I wonder. The allegedly "consequential repeal" is the only existing piece of legislation that is valid on this issue. Therefore, rather than being consequential, it should be treated as the root for the changes that the Government are now making. In those circumstances, clause 3 should have been clause 1 of the Bill, and the rest could have been tagged on to it. That was one way of doing it and it would have been acceptable to the Committee.
12.45 pm
Another aspect has been touched on several times in the debate, but it took me some time to realise the point that was being made. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) drew attention to the fact that the clause could be described as consequential—and it takes a fair stretch of the imagination to do that—only because of its strange construction. If the Bill had been written in another fashion, the clause, far from being consequential, would have been central to it.
Last week, we discussed the complex provisions of the Representation of the People Bill. At the end of the debates on that, I asked the Minister in charge of the Bill whether it was intended to consolidate all the legislation that that Bill affected. There is no sign of that consolidation in a far more complex Bill than this small one. The Representation of the People Bill runs to book after book on electoral and representation matters.
In those circumstances, why are the Government not consistent in the way that they deal with changes to legislation? For some reason, they want all the legislation governing the people from outwith the United Kingdom who are eligible to become legislators here to be governed by one small compass. That small, easily understood compass applies only to this Bill; it does not apply to the great mass of legislation by which we are governed.

That makes me exceedingly suspicious. Who is the Bill intended to impress? Who is it for? That question has been asked time and again and we have not had an answer. Instead, we have had careful, slippery evasion all the way through.
I wish to refresh the memories of those present, of those who might be watching my words on the dedicated television channels and of those who might be moved to read or look them up them on the internet. We should remember that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 arose because our late colleague, Harold McCusker, took a case, when he was a Member of the House, against the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on whether he could be a Member of the Senate and of the House. The courts at that time held that that was illegal, so the Government subsequently introduced the 1998 Act. It was discussed in the House on 18 November 1998 and it received Royal Assent on 19 November 1998. In December 1999—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is rehearsing issues that were dealt with under earlier clauses. He should refer specifically to the clause before us.

Mr. Ross: May I say to you, Mr. Lord, that I thought that I was following the course that the Government have taken with the Bill? Many people outside the Committee are not fully aware of the background in the concise, clear manner that I am trying to put it on the record. It is important that people who examine the Bill, read the debates and are curious about our concerns should understand the background to why we are suspicious about the way in which the Government have behaved. The reason that I was rehearsing some of the history, as quickly and concisely as I could, is that people outwith the House should know the reasons for our attitude. In those circumstances, Mr. Lord, I beg your indulgence while I continue.
It was only 13 months after the passage of the 1998 Act that we began the process of amending it—but at whose behest? We were told in earlier debates that the process began after the Government consulted, but we have not yet been told—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue to stray so wide of the clause. I should be grateful if he would return to the matter in hand.

Mr. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Lord. I shall try to come back inside the elastic fence that I always use in debates such as this. Sometimes a little push here and there at the fence that surrounds us reveals to the general public what they have a right to know. Along with Ministers and hon. Members, we are trying to inform the general public through our debates. We have a duty to tell them what the position is.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is addressing not the general public, but a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Ross: Are these proceedings not being televised and recorded in Hansard? Is not Hansard available on the internet and for sale? Is it not available to the 659 Members of Parliament—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to listen to my rulings and address his remarks to clause 3, I shall have to ask him to terminate his speech. Perhaps he will now get to the point.

Mr. Ross: Indeed, Mr. Lord, I am progressing toward the point. However, I have to confess that it remains some distance away, even within the narrow confines in which you want me to remain. However, bearing in mind your remarks, I shall try to make progress.
I do not believe that the clause should be consequential. It should be at the heart of the Bill and all other provisions should be hung from it, so to speak, like a tree with pegs.

Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that our suspicions are no less than those expressed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)? Ministers could relieve our suspicions by answering the questions put to them, so will my hon. Friend continue to press them to do so?

Mr. Ross: I am always happy to take good advice from my hon. Friend—after all, he was a teacher in a previous incarnation, so he is well qualified to attempt to gain and impart knowledge. I shall press both the Ministers who have been involved in our debates so far, in the hope that they will take account of our remarks and answer our questions.
To recap, the original legislative change was made to assist the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and for no other reason. However, other people have been appointed, including Dr. Robb, Brian Wilson, who tragically lost his daughter in the Enniskillen bombing, Sam McCaughtry and others. The Government of the day regarded the Mallon case as a hard case, but, as we know, hard cases generally make bad law.
It is not necessary to repeal the provision in the 1998 Act. It might be necessary to rephrase certain other parts of the legislation, but the 30-odd words in section 36(5) could usefully remain where they are. We would do better to leave them there. Those who are interested will have no difficulty finding that short provision and will know that it refers only to the Irish Senate.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree with the point that I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that the implication to be drawn from the explanatory notes is that the clause is redundant? However, if it is redundant it can be kept in the Bill without conflicting with the other clauses.

Mr. Ross: It can only be redundant because of the extraordinarily bad drafting of the Bill. If it had been drafted following the same rules and procedures that applied to the Representation of the People Bill, which was considered last week, it would not have appeared

before us in its present form. The provision that the Government are attempting to repeal through clause 3 would have remained.

Mr. Hayes: I am interested to hear those remarks. There seems to be a parallel with the debate that took place on the Government of Ireland Act 1920, when precisely these matters were dealt with. I shall be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman feels that this debate, in comparison with the debate in 1920, is redundant.

Mr. Ross: The only part of the last part of the 1920 Act to be repealed was the preface, as it were, stating that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and so forth. As there was nothing in particular to bite on, it was reckoned to be redundant. I always thought that it should have remained as a simple declaration of principle. For that reason I was opposed to that repeal. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it was done purely as a sop to Irish republicanism.
Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hayes: I was referring specifically to qualification and disqualification in terms of the 1920 Act. The view was taken that the new constitution had implications for them. We should at least consider the clause consistently in respect of what was intended when that state was established.

Mr. Ross: I understand now exactly where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. He knows that because of the limited time that was available to research all the implications of the Bill and the various roots from which it springs, it was not possible to go into those details. I hope that he will address the Committee when I resume my place, or at least at some stage before these debates come to an end. The 10 o'clock rule still applies and there is no real rush. We still have lots of time. We can easily address these matters today, tomorrow or whenever without any difficulty.
It seems that the Bill is as confused as Government policy. I think that the words that offend the Government in the 1998 Act could remain. That might mean the Minister having to do a little redrafting elsewhere in the Bill, but that is all that would be necessary. We would then have legislation that would be on all fours with the rest of the body of relevant United Kingdom legislation.
It has already been said that some Members of the Senate of the Irish Republic were appointed while some were elected by means of the university franchise, which we have long abandoned. Some regret that because they were a valuable group of Members. However, a new body is being created in Northern Ireland that has direct relevance to this measure: the civic forum. Its members will not be elected. Therefore it will be possible for people to be appointed to it from the Republic. I am wondering whether that is part and parcel of the Government's thinking. Is that part of the unspoken element—

1 pm

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Those matters do not arise under the clause. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman returned to considering the clause.

Mr. Ross: I thought that the purpose of the debate was to explore whether those matters arose under the clause.


I believe that they do because the clause removes a section that refers to the Irish Senate. The civic forum is the nearest analogous body, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to that which I described earlier.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend seeks an explanation for the allegedly consequential clause. The most unsatisfactory aspect of the debate is that the Under-Secretary's speech contains an explanation, but the only people who know its contents so far are Hansard reporters, who will have written it up from the draft that the Under-Secretary sent hours ago.

Mr. Ross: Hope springs eternal in the human breast and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will repeat his words. He is not here, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will pass on the message that, if the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department speaks slowly, we will understand exactly what he is trying to say.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments. He knows that I have been an associate member of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body for several years. Those of us who have played any part in existing cross-border parliamentary bodies are interested in hearing a true explanation for the clause and its peculiar drafting. Unless the Government can provide that, the hon. Gentleman is right to continue to press them.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is an interesting point, but the clause is simple. It is a necessary tidying-up provision because a section of the earlier Act becomes obsolete. I am not sure how much extra explanation the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) requires.

Mr. Ross: The Bill is superficially a simple measure. However, if it was that simple, how have we managed to spend 21 hours discussing it?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the muddle, confusion and obfuscation could easily be cleared up by a series of simple categorical statements by the Government, which would enable us to hold Prime Minister's questions and the rest of Wednesday's business? However, we are witnessing the most inept handling of a measure in the 30 years that I have been a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Ross: Would that I could agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government's handling of the Bill is not all that inept. The apparent ineptitude conceals a clever, devious piece of Government work. We have asked questions, which have not been answered. That is why we are still here. We are asking the same questions in different ways on every aspect of the Bill. After 21 hours of debate in Committee, we have not received an answer.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a good case for not repealing section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I have studied the explanatory notes,

which state that the section "is no longer needed", but provide no explanation for that. The Government have failed. Is not it therefore in order for him to make a case—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That was a long intervention and the hon. Gentleman has only repeated something that has been said many times.

Mr. Ross: I admitted earlier that I need to have these complex matters explained to me time after time, so that I understand them. Unfortunately, I am getting no assistance from Ministers. All we get is confusion and attempts us blind us with smoke, to hide the reality. The Government could have spared themselves so much pain and difficulty if they had only listened to the reasonable points made yesterday and in more than 21 hours of debate today.
If the Government had been forthcoming, all these problems would have long since disappeared. If they had let us know exactly what deal they had reached with IRA-Sinn Fein to produce this legislation and what was in the Bill for Sinn Fein-IRA, we would have known where we were. I dare say that in those circumstances, rather more people might have been prepared to vote against.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend recall that it took 15 hours of debate to get from the Government, like squeezing blood out of a stone, the information that they had negotiated with IRA-Sinn Fein to get this clause—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing whatsoever to do with clause 3. I counsel again the hon. Member for East Londonderry not to repeat himself, to come to the point and to arrive at a conclusion.

Mr. Ross: I have been trying not to repeat myself. It is just that I get drawn down highways and byways by right hon. and hon. Members who clearly have great difficulty understanding what is going on and seek the truth.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Would it not have clarified the situation and avoided misunderstanding and suspicion that a deal had been done if the Minister had said that the provision was to keep alive the mythology of a separate body of legislation for Northern Ireland? The fact that that explanation was not given might have added to the suspicion that has been engendered in all our minds.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is correct. The Northern Ireland statute book is to some extent a myth. We know from experience on various Committees in this House that it is maintained in some respects but ignored or overridden in others whenever that suits the Government of the day—especially in such matters as extending European law. The concept of a Northern Ireland statute book as a separate body of legislation has been greatly undermined by events over the past 25 years. My hon. Friend is correct to describe it as a myth because a myth it is.
I have tried to explore the issue for 20 minutes or so and I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have assisted me with their questions and interventions. It is always good to have friends in this place.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend but, given that the suspense on these Benches is almost unbearable, would it not help the Committee if the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave a nod or shake of the head to show whether he will reply to the debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Ross: While I am grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham, earlier there were nods and shakes to the extent that we had to get the Minister to tell us what they meant. Words are better than nodding or shaking heads. I hope that the Minister appreciates that we want words at some length and in some detail, so that we have a clear understanding of what is going on in regard both to repealing the 1998 Act and the Bill as a whole. We have not had that. Repeals usually appear in a table at the end of a Bill, but no such table appears in this Bill. The repeal appears as a clause, which is somewhat unusual. My experience may not be such that it ensures that I am correct, so I seek guidance. Why has that not been done? We deserve to be told.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say, "The Bill represents tidy draftsmanship. We are good at tidying up and leaving things neat." For heaven's sake, if the Government are to do that let us start with the complex legislation. Rather than scatter the whole body of United Kingdom law over half a library, let us upgrade and consolidate it annually or biannually so that people know exactly where they stand. It does not matter what they are looking for—our legislation refers back to statutory instruments, various orders, Bills and God knows what and is impossible to disentangle. To do that, we would have to employ a good barrister every day in the House, which is probably why so many banisters and lawyers are Members. They can thread their way through the legislation.
The legislation is simplistic according to the Government, but what have they done? They have simplified it even further, which does not make sense or fit into the general scheme of Government behaviour and the usual way of amending Bills. It does not fit in any way, shape or form and that has simply increased the suspicions of Opposition Members. In the light of that, we deserve a proper explanation.

Mr. Gale: Was not my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) right to suggest that we have heard assertions from Ministers, but no evidence whatever? Is not that the fundamental problem? I do not want to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is on our Front Bench, but he said that the matter could be tidied up, given a ministerial statement or two. Those of us who have been here for many hours are well aware that a great many issues have to be dealt with—the future of Ministers in the House who might become Ministers in an Irish republican Government, for example. We have consistently tried to get answers from the Minister, but

clearly we shall be able to do so only by debating the new clauses and having a thorough debate on Third Reading. I cannot see how the matter could be tidied up quickly.

Mr. Ross: I agree, but the hon. Gentleman used the word "assertions", which is not used in Northern Ireland or in Ireland generally. The word "allegations" is used, and they are usually made against the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Army. The Bloody Sunday inquiry is a case in point and the bill is almost £14 million, which has been spent for no good purpose. Allegations are made time and again until some foolish people actually believe them and hold inquiries. My view is that allegations and assertions, whether they relate to the events of 30 January 1972 or whatever, are only that until proof positive—proof beyond reasonable doubt—is produced. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office is starting to react for the first time. We hear him, but that is not unusual because he always blows up when we touch a sore spot. Perhaps I should cool it a little because I do not want him to get out of order and raise your ire, Mr. Lord.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has got a reaction.

Mr. Ross: That is a happy change, but unfortunately that Minister is not the man from whom we want a reaction. We want words, but he is apparently not in a position to give us the information that we on these Benches—both Ulster Unionist and Conservative—require. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats also raised questions, as did Labour Members.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that he was about to bring his remarks to a close. I think that would be a good idea.

Mr. Ross: If the Minister of State had behaved himself, my remarks probably would have been terminated by now. He moved me to continue. But in the light of your strictures, Sir, I will bring my brief remarks—

Mr. Hayes: Before the hon. Gentleman abbreviates his remarks to an unacceptable degree, could he return to the issue of representation? Since I last intervened I have had a chance to look at a copy of Hansard dated 31 March 1920, column 1288, which confirms my earlier suggestion that Ireland's representation in this Parliament was critical to that debate. Could he address that matter once and for all?

Mr. Ross: I regret that I would have to go off and study that passage. If you, Mr. Lord, would give me permission to speak again before these debates finish I would be in a position to do that and then meet the hon. Gentleman's request. He was helpful to me a moment ago, but I confess that in 1920 I was not even a twinkle in my father's eye. I will deal with the matter if he does not.
With those few words I must bring my brief remarks to an end. I hope to speak again and examine this matter in somewhat more detail before we finish.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I should like to make a few very brief points, partly to amplify my intervention of a few minutes ago and partly to answer the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).
There is one reason, and one reason only, why we are still debating this measure at this time. That reason sits on the Government Bench. It is the silence of the Treasury Bench that is responsible for the fact that my eloquent and hon. Friends have felt obliged to repeat points, to repeat questions—[Interruption.] It is not for hon. Members, from a sedentary position, to usurp the Chair. Where my hon. Friends have very occasionally strayed a little, they have been brought up and corrected, and they have apologised. But for the most part the speeches made by all my right hon. and hon. Friends have been apposite and absolutely within order. Successive occupants of the Chair of this Committee have acknowledged it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Julian Brazier: Was not that a particularly tasteless sedentary intervention, coming from a side that will shortly table a motion, distantly connected with this matter, which has always in the past been left in the hands of the House authorities?

Sir Patrick Cormack: It is always nice to have friends who parachute in fresh and full of vigour. Some of us have been here all through the night. I have been here for almost all the debate since it began yesterday afternoon—or earlier today, should I say, in parliamentary terms? All we are asking for is a series of answers from Ministers, answers which they steadfastly refuse to give.
It has been like the dog that barked in the night, or did not, because right through the night we have had silence; we have had no speeches from Government Back Benchers. Such interventions as we had at the very early stages of the debate came from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), both of whom were extremely concerned. What we have had in this long debate on clause 3—[Interruption.] Sir Alan does not need the prompting of the silent Member—of the man who does not have the guts or gumption to stand at the Dispatch Box and answer the questions that have been put to him.
I promised that my intervention would be brief and to the point. What we want are simple, clear answers that will clear away the fog of suspicion that hangs over this debate and will dispel the reasonable doubts put by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have never seen such a collective abdication. A thousand days? A thousand days of muddle and confusion, ending in this appalling charade.

Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said that clause 3 would probably be passed in due course. I suspect that he must be right, given the way in which the Government handle these matters. Whether the clause is passed yesterday, today or tomorrow remains to be seen, but parts of it will be passed.
I came to the Chamber bright and early, as I always do, so that I can serve my constituents while other Members are still sleeping. I arrived at about 7.30 am, and noticed that the Committee was still sitting. I wondered why, and I came into the Chamber to listen to the debate. After

many years in the House of Commons, I found it inconceivable that even this Government could so mismanage the affairs of the House that what is, in general, a relatively straightforward measure—

The Chairman: Order. After those many years in the House, the hon. Gentleman will know that what he is saying has no relevance to the clause 3 stand part debate, to which I advise him to direct his remarks.

Mr. Nicholls: Thank you, Sir Alan. The point that I was trying to make was that this clause—

The Chairman: Order. I have just said that it is not a point that the hon. Gentleman can validly make during a stand part debate relating to clause 3. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to continue his remarks, I invite him to direct them towards clause 3 stand part.

Mr. Nicholls: The point that I am making on clause 3 is that, at first sight, it is a perfectly straightforward measure that might be expected to pass into law with some speed.
We must bear in mind that when the measure does, in due course, pass into law, the lawyers will be looking at it. They will be asked by their clients to interpret the law that the House has passed. Surely, therefore, we as legislators—irrespective of party allegiance—have a duty to try to ensure that legislation leaves the House of Commons in a sensible and intelligible form.
Lawyers—even humble country lawyers like me—must look at statutes of this sort, and interpret them for our constituents. One of the first things that any competent lawyer would do in examining a Bill such as this is look at the consequentials: it is necessary to see what the repeal measures are. Any lawyer looking at clause 3 and trying to work out why Parliament, in its assumed wisdom, would have let it become law would ask, "What is this all about?" He would then have read that section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—
which has the effect of allowing a member of
the Irish Senate
to be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly"—
is to be repealed.
We must ask ourselves why. What does it mean? Taken at face value, it means nothing. Any client who, as a result of the deliberations on clause 3, asks a lawyer "What does this mean?" will find that the lawyer simply does not know. So what does the client do? He goes back to the 1998 Act.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Can my hon. Friend confirm my understanding that, in trying to determine what clause 3 actually means, lawyers will read our debates with the aim of discovering what was in the minds of legislators when they come to interpret the clause. Is this not at the heart of the difficulty that we are having with the Government? We are trying to understand what clause 3 is about.

Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend speaks with great authority, as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a long-standing Member of Parliament. I would only say to him that, in a sense—for reasons that


I entirely understand—he asks me a question that I am literally not qualified to answer. He asks for an answer that I am incapable of giving.
My right hon. Friend wants to know what this is all about. There is an answer, which I will deal with in a moment; but it is not an answer that I have heard yet.

Mr. Bercow: We are, after all, debating not an Opposition amendment, but a Government clause. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it is incumbent on the Minister to provide the cost-benefit calculus that we require to determine properly the merits of the clause's inclusion, or exclusion?

Mr. Nicholls: Again, my hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter. He points out, although I am not sure whether it was his intention, the distress that the clause will cause solicitors throughout the country, who, obviously, will want to advise their clients about what the clause might mean. They will start the process by trying to identify what the clause means and what its consequences are. If the debate goes no further, they will come up against a brick wall.
The first thing any solicitor trying to construe the clause will say is, "Hang on a second. It does not repeal legislation that was passed 20, 10 or five years ago. The legislation is barely two years old."

Mr. Bercow: I do not want my hon. Friend to misinterpret the purport of my intervention. What he says is entirely reasonable, but will he understand that compassion for lawyers was not uppermost in my mind?

Mr. Nicholls: I am surprised that my hon. Friend makes that remark, knowing what lawyers bring to the House. His point may be more populist than any that I seek to deal with.
In trying to work out what the clause means, one knows at once that the legislation that is being repealed is not elderly but barely two years old. One then goes to the original 1975 legislation. Again, that does not help us to unravel the mystery of what the clause is all about.
To try to understand what the clause was all about and whether it truly was consequential, one would, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said, look at Hansard. There is a problem there because the leading case of Pepper v. Hart lays down strict conditions on the extent to which one can use Hansard to construe the effect of litigation. Having said that, any competent lawyer faced with the clause, even though he realised that he will not be able to argue Hansard in court, would at least go to Hansard, saying to his client, "I cannot quote it, but I will be able to find out for you what the Government were trying to do. "
At that stage, it is straightforward. One goes to Hansard. One sees the many excellent contributions that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made and ignores them. One goes to the Minister's speech to find out what he said about the matter.
We can all blink in the House. We should not, but it happens. Sometimes one even yawns, the moment passes and one can come back into the debate without missing much of it. Earlier today, those who of us who blinked, yawned or even drew breath found that the Minister had already delivered his speech and that was it. So far, I have

found no one in the debate who has been able to repeat anything that the Minister said, or been able even to criticise anything that he said, because we do not know what it was.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend knows that it is out of order—Sir Alan, I am sure, will agree—for someone to speak in a foreign language in the Chamber because speaking in a foreign language is unintelligible.

The Chairman: Order. I see absolutely no connection between what the hon. Gentleman is saying and the matter that is before us. I have heard enough.

Mr. Nicholls: I am surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) because, from my acquaintance with the Minister, his grasp of English is such that I cannot imagine him lapsing into a foreign language, but the point is that we simply do not know.
What is particularly unsatisfactory is that there are people who know what was in that speech: the Hansard reporters. They do not know from having written it down. They know because, a few moments later, there was the usual bustle of paper on the Back Benches. By now, the Minister's written speech will have been translated into Hansard

Mr. Brady: Is it not possible that the note that was communicated to the Hansard reporters might not even be entirely the same as the words that were spoken? [Interruption.] Usually, we would be able to tell whether they were the same.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman, on reflection, might think it unwise to question the integrity of the Official Report.

Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I would not question the integrity of the Hansard reporters. My only point is that they, like hon. Members, would have no way of knowing whether the Minister's gabbled comments were the same as the content of the note.

The Chairman: Order. I should also advise the hon. Gentleman that it would be unwise to criticise the integrity of another hon. Member, as by implication he is doing.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I have gone to the Vote Office and obtained a copy of Hansard for 25 January. You will be aware that Hansard is available also on the internet, but not until the afternoon. The written Hansard for 25 January ceases just after 1.15 am, which was before the statement in question was made by the Minister. Would it be in order to ask Hansard to send down a manuscript copy, so that hon. Members might see what was said?

The Chairman: Order. So far as the proceedings of the Committee are concerned, hon. Members must be deemed to have been present to have heard all that was


said. That is the end of the matter. In any case, one would not usually expect a record to be available until some time after the event.

Mr. Fabricant: But, Sir Alan—

The Chairman: Order. I am on my feet, and the hon. Gentleman will not argue with me from a sedentary position. That is the end of the matter. When hon. Members are participating in a debate, they must be deemed to have heard all that has been said and to have reacted to it.
As I am on my feet, I should also say that many hon. Members have a shared concern about a particular point. However, constant repetition of that point will shortly put them in breach of Standing Order No. 42.

Mr. Nicholls: I trust, Sir Alan, that I have not repeated anything that I have said so far.

The Chairman: Order. Let me make it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman that it is not only a matter of repeating himself; if he is repeating the self-same argument that has been used in the debate by other hon. Members, Standing Order No. 42 can be invoked if I believe that to be the appropriate course.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful for that, Sir Alan, and I was mindful of the risk. I therefore abandoned almost every paragraph of my written speech, to concentrate on a matter that I thought would be of interest to colleagues on both sides of the Committee—the particular problems that solicitors and barristers will have in advising their clients about the purport of the legislation. If I failed in that, Sir Alan, I apologise—but it was the key point that I wanted to concentrate on. I realised that, if I had not done that, as it is late in the debate, I might have repeated points already made by other hon. Members.
Sir Alan, as you know better than any of us, the problem is that, if one had missed the speech, gone up to Hansard and said, "May I, please, see a copy of a speech that you will have reported some 20 minutes ago?", the staff would have said, "You can see your own words, but you are not entitled to see the words of other hon. Members." Therefore, at this stage, if one wanted to know what was in the Minister's speech, unless one had been in the Chamber and could hear it, there is no way in which one could obtain a copy of it from Hansard.

Mr. Brazier: There is of course a particular problem: even with the very high quality of our Hansard reporters, there is sometimes some divergence between the spoken word and the substance of the written text. It has always been the rule of the House that what matters subsequently is only the written text.

Mr. Nicholls: As I said, eventually, we shall know what the written text was, and that may indicate what the spoken word may have been. However, certainly for

purposes of this debate and bringing it to a speedy conclusion, we do not know what the Government's case is.

Mr. Hayes: Surely the point that my hon. Friend is making—

The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman remember that he should be addressing the occupant of the Chair?

Mr. Hayes: Surely the point—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Face the Chair."] Surely the point that my hon. Friend is making is that lawyers who interpret the clause will have to know precisely what the Minister said about it, to inform them in making a judgment. They will have the Hansard available to them. My hon. Friend may be right in saying that we do not have it now, to inform our debate, but the argument that he was making—

The Chairman: Order. I do not think that that is getting us anywhere at all. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) have alluded is a universal handicap in the proceedings of the House. It is not unique to the discussion of clause 3 stand part, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Teignbridge now direct his remarks exclusively to whether clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Nicholls: The only honest answer to your question, Sir Alan, is that I cannot know whether the clause should stand part of the Bill without knowing what the Government's reaction would be if it did not. That worries me.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is a lawyer. Will he share with me why he believes that the Government have included the clause in the Bill? Why does he think that section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is no longer needed?

Mr. Nicholls: I can try. In default of an explanation from the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that he could see no particular reason for its exclusion, or its inclusion. There is a principle in law that holds that legislation that is not consistent with earlier legislation is repealed impliedly. That straightforward concept is familiar to any competent lawyer construing statutes.
Without that principle, the burden of legislation going through the House would be massive and terminal, as the House would always be having to repeal specifically provisions that are now repealed impliedly. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has uncovered another mystery. Why are the Government adopting this approach? If, as it appears, clause 3 is unnecessary and has been repealed impliedly by clause 1, the question of what is special about clause 3 arises.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am always anxious to help hon. Members who have not been able to attend the whole debate. I have indicated to the Committee what I said in


relation to clause 3 several times but, with your permission, Sir Alan, I should be happy to refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory. According to my note, I said:
Clause 3 is a narrow, consequential clause that provides for the repeal of section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 36(5) has the effect of allowing a Member of the Irish Senate to be a Member of the Northern Irish Assembly. Clause 1 of this Bill has the same effect, so section 36(5) is no longer needed. We have in that sense already discussed these issues.
I have repeated by and large the same sentences on a number of occasions. I hope that that assists the hon. Gentleman to conclude his remarks.

Mr. Nicholls: The Minister says that that is what he said in the substance of his speech. I am sure that Hansard will bear that out, and that is fine. However, if he had said as much in an intelligible form at the time, the Committee would have been saved many hours—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I do not want a disturbance from Government Members. The hon. Gentleman should he allowed to make his speech.

Mr. Nicholls: Had the Minister done the Committee the courtesy of making that speech at an intelligible rate, we would have been able to probe what the clause means. What the Minister said is not proof that clause 3 is a consequential or necessary amendment. I have heard suggestions that the amendment is obsolete, or redundant, or otiose or tautologous. We simply do not know, because the Minister has advanced no argument for the clause. He has done no more than make an assertion on its behalf.
It is clear to me that the clause is not necessary. As a lawyer and a legislator, I am not in favour of unnecessary legislation. I am in favour of relevant legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, either the Bill is an example of massive incompetence by Ministers who do not bother to read their briefs—and that is not my view of the Minister—or it cannot be taken at face value.

The Chairman: Order. That has been said many times—I do not want to hear it again.

Mr. Nicholls: I hope that even before the debate is finished, we will move beyond rhetoric, beyond assertion, and find out the Bill's hidden agenda. It is clear that the Bill has a hidden purpose which dare not speak its name.

The Chairman: Has the hon. Gentleman now sat down? It saves me making a further point.

Mr. Letwin: Some while ago, reference was made to the Johnny-come-lately type. Having been here for slightly less than three hours, I admit that I fall into that category. At a certain point in this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to the fog of confusion. Having listened to a large part of the debate on the clause, I agree that there is real confusion.
The first issue—I shall not try your patience, Sir Alan, or that of the Committee, by devoting more than a moment to it—is whether a clause that amends something that is itself compatible with the purpose of the first clause

of the Bill can be regarded as consequential. It would be otiose to talk about that any more. However, the clause is not a consequential amendment in the normal sense.
The second point, which has not come to the fore during this debate—indeed, to my astonishment, it has not been mentioned—is a serious constitutional issue. I draw the Committee's attention to the part of the clause in parenthesis, which has so far escaped the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The words in parenthesis, which refer to section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, are:
(which has the effect of allowing a member of Seanad Eireann to be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly).
That is a most remarkable piece of legislation. I have not had the opportunity to check whether it is literally unprecedented, although I suspect that it may be. It is very unusual for a measure to come before the House—other than the Interpretation Act 1978—that contains a clause seeking to interpret an existing Act.
An oddity exists that would make it improper for the Committee to allow clause stand part, simply as a matter of legislative drafting. With the passage of time, should the Bill become an Act, it will contain a manifest falsehood. By virtue of the words "is repealed" it will make false the proposition, "which has the effect." It should instead read "which had the effect."
I do not want to bore the Committee by dwelling on that piece of legislative misdrafting. It is interesting, however, that it should have occurred, because it illustrates how unusual for the parliamentary draftsmen such an interpretative clause must have been. How can they have made such an error if they were used to producing interpretative clauses of this kind in a Bill? We should tarry and worry before passing into law a clause which will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) lucidly said, have significance for lawyers in time to come and which may be used as a precedent for future legislation. The Bill seeks to give a particular interpretation to a previous piece of legislation. If we accepted the clause as a precedent for legislative drafting, there could be all sorts of strange consequences. Instead of Bills amending and replacing previous legislation directly, they could come before the House fashioned—as clause 3 is—to reinterpret existing legislation.

Mr. Hawkins: I have been listening very carefully to my hon. Friend. Would he agree that the concern that he expresses is of particular importance since the House of Lords' judicial decision in the case of Pepper v. Hart that debates in the House and proceedings in Hansard can be used for purposes of interpretation? If we are to have debates on a Government attempt to reinterpret their own legislation, how will the courts possibly get to the bottom of that?

Mr. Letwin: I agree with my hon. Friend. The precise way in which the clause is drafted, leaving aside the lacuna, or deficiency, to which I referred, is calculated—whether it were adopted as a general precedent—or indeed merely in itself—to cause maximum confusion of the type to which my hon. Friend alluded. It would fall to lawyers in court to try to decide whether, if there was a case in respect of


which it was relevant that, at a time before the passage of the Bill, the 1998 Act had a certain effect, they and the judge should take account of the Act as it was then interpreted according to precedent, or of Parliament's subsequent judgment, expressed in the clause, as an interpretation of what the Act had meant when it did apply.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is my hon. Friend saying that clause 3 interprets the 1998 Act in the sense of giving an opinion on that Act, or is it interpretative in the sense that it makes a statement of fact? I believe the latter to be the case.

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is also my learned friend. I bow to him if I am in error, but if the statement in parenthesis is unnecessary—in the sense that it is merely a statement of uncontroversial fact—the legislative misdrafting is more astonishing than I had conceived. In that case, it would have been proper for the words in parenthesis to have been omitted and for the clause to have been a simple repeal provision. There is no need to state obvious facts in a Bill. If all the obvious facts could conceivably have been included in the clause, it would have been of infinite length.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right, but a bit severe. The problem that he illustrates could be dealt with in two ways. The first would be to replace the words "which has the effect" with the words "which had the effect". The second would be to follow the precedent set in clause 1 by leaving out the phrase with the verb. We could omit the words "which has the effect of" and replace them by "allowing a member of" and so on. Those suggestions would not deal with the major point made by my hon. Friend, but they would deal with the minor point.

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend may be correct as to the syntax of the phrase in parenthesis. I am not sure whether his suggestions would make a material improvement; they would certainly remove the infelicity of the reference to "has".
I draw his attention to an interesting example of my general point: the great difference between what would then be the effect of the phrase in parenthesis and the effect of the phrase in parenthesis on the third line of clause 1—I am, of course, not debating clause 1—which refers to
disqualification of member of the legislature".
The difference is that the parenthesis in the third line of clause 1 merely replicates the side heading of the Bill. It is an expansion, or as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough would say, a statement of fact. It is an expansion of the direct reference to the relevant section.
However, I do not think that that is the purport of the phrase in parenthesis in clause 3. The draftsman has emphasised that fact by using the words
which has the effect of allowing".
I take it that he used those words to draw the attention of the House and the Committee—alas, because he was not used to drafting such clauses, he used the wrong tense,

but he was making an honest search after truth—to the fact that the measure was most unusual. The measure is an attempt to interpret.
Although I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their interventions, they have diverted me from the main line of the argument that I was pursuing. It is bizarre that at this late hour on a Tuesday—if it is Tuesday—or at an early hour on Wednesday, we should be debating a constitutional point of great significance, which my hon. Friends assure me has not been raised. It certainly has not been debated during the three hours during which I have been in this place. That significant constitutional point will ricochet through our legislation hereafter. If we begin to accept in the Bill the principle of such interpretative legislation outside the context of the Interpretation Act 1978, we shall put our courts in a position of terminal confusion. What my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham described as a fog of confusion will ensue.
This situation is all the worse because of its connection with the point—which I promised I would not labour, and will not—which has been made by many of my hon. Friends, that this is, in the words of the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, a tidying-up clause, one that seeks to fit in with clause 1. Were clause 3 a consequential amendment in the strict sense—were it removing something that was inconsistent with clause 1 and the rest of the Bill—of course the courts, in looking at it, might say that we had not created a great precedent of interpretation here, but that we were merely trying to elucidate the effect of an absolutely necessary and genuinely consequential amendment. However, we are contemplating the prospect that a particular individual or group may be affected by a discrepancy between the interpretation now placed on the 1998 Act and the interpretation that was originally placed on that Act, and will look at the clause—which, admittedly, in the words of the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, no less, is only a tidying-up measure. Therefore, we would be accepting the proposition that it is tidying-up legislation to interpret legislation in subsequent legislation. That is a dreadful principle.

Mr. Leigh: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend. Does he propose that we should delete the matters contained within the brackets, that we should delete the whole clause or that we should leave the clause as it is?

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring me up short and ask what the consequence of my argument is. There are various ways in which it could be handled. We are in a stand part debate, so I am precluded from suggesting an amendment to the clause. Had I been on the qui vive, which I regret to say that I was not, and had I attended more carefully to the clause some days before the debate, I could have tabled an amendment that would have taken care of the case and restricted the phrase in parenthesis so that it did not have this evil effect and, in particular, so that it avoided the problem of the tense. However, you will undoubtedly tell me, Sir Alan, that I cannot mention in any detail the possibility of amendment. So we are restricted, in a stand part debate, to the binary choice of allowing or not allowing the clause. I


am trying to draw my hon. Friends' attention—to the slight desperation of Labour Members, so many of whom have recently joined us—to serious reasons, of constitutional and legislative precedent, why we should at least consider refusing to accept clause 3 as part of the Bill.
My hon. Friend was right to intervene, because he has moved me on to the final stage of my argument.

Mr. Hawkins: Before my hon. Friend moves on, would he not say that, because of the complications that he has talked about and the confusion between past interpretations and what may happen if the Bill is passed in its present form, with this obviously weak clause, the matters that the Minister referred to earlier—the particular cases of distinguished Irish politicians who have sought election in Northern Ireland—may be confused by historians, because those politicians were elected under previous legislation in respect of which clause 3 can only muddy the waters?

Mr. Letwin: I agree with my hon. Friend. In parenthesis, vis-a-vis the parenthetical clause, it should be added that it is particularly bizarre that the Government should be introducing legislation in the House to interpret their own legislation in the House.
I have not sought to verify from the official record whether, when the Bill that became the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was being discussed, the then Minister—whoever it might have been—who was discussing that particular section of it in Committee made reference to a particular interpretation of its effects. Should it turn out on inspection—I use this as an example for the Committee's elucidation—that the official record shows that the Minister's interpretation at the time differed from the interpretation that is now being used in the clause before us, the courts would be in an even worse situation than I had envisaged. That would be the case because, under Pepper v. Hart, the court would need to interpret the Minister's interpretation of his then clause as meaning one thing, and now, presumably, the court would need to look also at clause 3 of the Bill before us and see that the same Minister, or a Minister from the same Government, in an Act of Parliament—one does not, I suppose, doubt that an Act of Parliament overrules a statement made in Committee in a previous discussion—had interpreted it differently. I suppose that this could throw into question the whole Pepper v. Hart doctrine. I say that tentatively, as I would not want to cause trouble irresponsibly for the courts.
What is one to make of a situation in which the courts, of their own volition, have decided that Ministers' statements—and, I suppose, the statements of the movers of amendments and new clauses in Bills—should be read as having interpretive weight under circumstances where a novel device is introduced of bringing into Bills interpretations which may supersede or conflict with those earlier interpretations?
I hope, Sir Alan, that that illustrates that there is a serious issue here, although one does not expect to find a serious constitutional issue embedded in such an ostensibly unimportant clause. I genuinely wonder whether the Minister, his legal advisers and the

parliamentary draftsmen seriously paused to think about what they were doing in introducing this parenthetical phrase.

Mr. Hawkins: Earlier, the Minister was questioned by hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—about whether the Bill had its genesis in constitutional changes in Ireland. Is there an additional complication, in that we may have to look at the way in which the Irish courts interpret the corresponding Irish constitutional changes to which the Minister referred?

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend takes me into deep waters, and he may be right. I have no way of telling, as I do not understand the Irish legislative system or the Irish judicial system. That may be one of the points that my hon. Friends have been making in a tangential sense.
If it is the case, and I think it is, that through the medium of this parenthetical clause, a serious constitutional conundrum, which may have profound and long-lasting effects on the way in which our courts interpret the actions of our House, and hence the meaning of our legislation, is being introduced into the Bill—I think by mistake, as I do not suggest that the Minister or his advisers intended it—we have to ask whether the necessity for the clause is so great as to overcome the deficiency of introducing legislation with such unintended and possibly harmful consequences.
The odd thing is that I am now in a position to do what I could not do before, as I have heard what the Minister had to say. He was clear that the description of the clause, given in an amateur way by your predecessor Mr. Lord—if I can put it in that way, Sir Alan, without offending the dignity of the Chair—as a "tidying-up measure" has been reinforced by the professional statement of the Minister that it is not a consequential amendment in the direct sense. The new clause is not necessary. It is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, clearly a compatible but otherwise unobnoxious piece of legislation—that is, section 36(5) of the 1998 Act—that the clause repeals. There is no harm in that, except for the parenthetical clause and its ricocheting consequences. However, there is no gain either.
So long have some of my hon. Friends been here that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) got himself into a deep fog of confusion when he told us that it neither matters nor does not matter. That is an impossibility, Sir Alan. Something either matters or it does not matter—and I know which is the case here. The clause does not matter at all. It could be torn up and thrown away without the slightest effect on humanity, except the beneficial effect of removing the parenthetical phrase that will cause serious problems for our courts and legislature hereafter. Therefore, we need to tarry long before we pass any such clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee proceeded to a Division—

The Chairman: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 318, Noes 16.

Division No.48]
[1.59pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cooper, Yvette


Ainger, Nick
Corbett, Robin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allan, Richard
Corston, Jean


Allen, Graham
Cotter, Brian


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cranston, Ross


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Crausby, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Ashton, Joe
Cummings, John


Atkins, Charlotte
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Austin, John



Ballard, Jackie
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Barnes, Harry
Dalyell, Tam


Battle, John
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Beard, Nigel
Darvill, Keith


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dawson, Hilton


Bennett, Andrew F
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Doran, Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradshaw, Ben
Ennis,Jeff


Breed, Colin
Fearn, Ronnie


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fisher, Mark



Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzsimons, Loma


Browne, Desmond
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Follett, Barbara


Burgon, Colin
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gardiner, Barry


Canavan, Dennis
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Caplin, Ivor
Gerrard, Neil


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cawsey, Ian
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grogan, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coleman, Iain
Hepburn, Stephen


Connarty, Michael
Heppell, John





Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hood, Jimmy



Hope, Phil
Mountford, Kali


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Oaten, Mark


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Illsley, Eric
Palmer, Dr Nick


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pendry, Tom


Jamieson, David
Perham, Ms Linda


Jenkins, Brian
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pound, Stephen


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keetch, Paul
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kidney, David
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Laxton, Bob
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lepper, David
Rammell, Bill


Leslie, Christopher
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Levitt, Tom
Rendel, David


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Linton, Martin
Rooney, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lock, David
Ruddock, Joan


Love, Andrew
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCabe, Steve
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Salter, Martin



Sanders, Adrian


Macdonald, Calum
Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonnell, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McFall, John
Sawford, Phil


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


MacShane, Denis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shipley, Ms Debra


McWalter, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWilliam, John
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


Meale, Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Merron, Gillian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mitchell, Austin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moffatt, Laura
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moore, Michael
Stunell, Andrew


Moran, Ms Margaret
Sutcliffe, Gerry






Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Webb, Steve


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
White, Brian


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Todd, Mark



Tonge, Dr Jenny
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Touhig, Don
Willis, Phil


Trickett, Jon
Wilson, Brian


Truswell, Paul
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wood, Mike


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wray, James


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tyler, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Tynan, Bill



Ward, Ms Claire
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Watts, David
Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Cash, William
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
St Aubyn, Nick


Gale, Roger
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gray, James
Thompson, William


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Leigh, Edward



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Maginnis, Ken
Mr. David Maclean and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Peter Bottomley.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

SHORT TITLE

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The clause is short, but it causes me confusion. In my 20 years in the House—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there must be order in Committee so that he can be heard.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Thank you, Sir Alan.
I have spent more than 20 years in the House, and I have been confused on several occasions. When confusion afflicts me, it is best to share it with the House in the hope that colleagues can clarify matters.
The Bill is riddled with the word "disqualification". The clause states that the measure can be called the Disqualifications Bill. That is consistent with the title on the front page. The Home Secretary's contribution on the European convention on human rights states that
the provisions of the Disqualifications Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.

The Government acknowledge in the Bill's title that the measure is about disqualification.

Mr. Leigh: The Bill is mistitled because it is not a Disqualifications Bill. It removes disqualifications and should be called the Qualification of Irish Members Bill.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which he presented with characteristic clarity. If he is so minded, he may take an opportunity to catch your eye, Sir Alan, to explore that matter further. However, I do not want to focus on that.
The long title of the Bill contains the word "disqualification" once and "disqualify" once. As we have noted in earlier debates—though I shall not return to those matters, as you would not wish me to do that, Sir Alan, and it would be wrong to try—

The Chairman: I do not want extraneous advice of that kind from the right hon. Gentleman. He must stick to the point of the clause, which is very narrow.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I accept your ruling without reservation, Sir Alan. I am establishing the point that the word "disqualification" in clause 4— [Interruption.]

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Most of us who have been listening to debate on the Bill for the whole night are trying to hear my right hon. Friend's speech. We cannot hear either your rulings, Sir Alan, or the speech because of the noise coming from Government Members—who should have been here all night making speeches themselves.

The Chairman: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is quite the best person to make that comment. I most certainly have been here all night—and as I have listened with great care to the proceedings so far, so I wish to listen with great care to the completion of those proceedings.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Clause 4 states that the Bill can be referred to as the Disqualifications Bill, which is consistent with the Government's approach throughout. I am not reopening any of the issues, but pointing out that the word "disqualification" or "disqualified" regularly appears throughout the Bill.

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has already committed one repetition. I do not want to hear any more.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: "Disqualification" characterises the Government's attitude to this and previous legislation—all of which is referred to in the Bill.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) suggested that a more accurate


title would be the Qualification of Irish Members Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a more accurate title would actually be the Removal of Disqualifications Bill?

The Chairman: Order. Again, that repeats a point already made. I will not have constant repetition on a clause this narrow.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I will not pursue my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion.
I was making the broader point that the Bill's title sits comfortably with the general attitude of Government legislation on Northern Ireland. The 1998 Act, which is central to our considerations, also talks about disqualification. The Bill refers to the 1975 Act from a Labour Government, which similarly refers to disqualification.
The Government talk about social inclusion. They have a social inclusion unit at 10 Downing street and have spent two and a half years—right to this 1,000th day of the present Government, when they lost control of the House of Commons—lecturing us about social inclusion and not excluding or disqualifying people.

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is departing far from the topic before the Committee, which is a simple matter of determining the title of the Bill. He has great experience of the House and must direct his remarks precisely to that point.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: As always, I am grateful for your advice, Sir Alan, but my purpose is not to widen the debate beyond the clause. As you remarked, we are deciding whether it should stand part of the Bill.
When the Minister replies to what I suspect will be a brief debate, will he explain why a Government who are focused on inclusion—so they tell us—have introduced a Bill that they discuss in terms of disqualification or exclusion?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the title Disqualifications Bill is insensitive, especially on the day on which we have been told that students from the south of Ireland will not have to pay fees at Scottish universities, although those from the north of Ireland will?

The Chairman: Order. That is absolutely nothing to do with the matter before us.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I would not have dreamed of following my hon. Friend down that line, even before you, Sir Alan, had ruled that I should not do so.
I am trying to put a serious point to the Government. They could have chosen a number of titles. The clause, on which we are focusing, did not have to refer to disqualification and could have used inclusive rather than exclusive terms. We see again that they say one thing but do another. As we continue Tuesday's business and Wednesday's is lost, and as we show that the Prime Minister has no control—

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of abusing his poison, as those are not matters to

which he may refer. I must tell the Committee that if he repeats his remarks, and if I believe under Standing Order No. 42 that a Member
persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition",
I may require him to resume his seat. I am sure that he would not want me to invoke that provision against him.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I certainly would not, Sir Alan. I want the Minister to explain why the clause uses such terms, given Government policy.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Can you help me and the Committee with the wording of the clause? Is it incorrect? It says:
This Act may be cited as the Disqualifications Act 2000.
Surely it should be—

The Chairman: Order. That is common parlance in all Bills that come before the House. That is not a point of order. I call Mr. Maclean.

Mr. Wells: May I seek your advice, Sir Alan?

The Chairman: Order. I have ruled on the matter. Is this a fresh point of order?

Mr. Wells: It is fresh, as I see it, and I hope that you will see it in the same light. A Bill cannot become an Act—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember his position. He is seeking to dispute my ruling. He should consider that he is not the most appropriate person to challenge the Chair in that way.

Mr. Wells: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to persist.

Mr. Wells: I am very sorry, Sir Alan, but I am not trying to challenge your ruling in any way—I do not understand it. Did you say that using such words is common practice?

The Chairman: Absolutely. That is perfectly clear, as the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House for many years, well knows. That is the end of the matter. I again call Mr. Maclean.

Mr. Maclean: I want to raise a small point on clause 4, on which I hope the Minister can advise us. The clause provides that the Act may be cited as the Disqualifications Act 2000. [Interruption.] I hope and believe that I am right in saying that it is usual for the parliamentary draftsmen—[Interruption.]—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I must have order in the Committee. If hon. Members are present to listen to the debate, they must do precisely that.

Mr. Maclean: Thank you for your protection, Sir Alan.
I understand that it is usual for parliamentary draftsmen to select a short title to an Act that is entirely consistent with the long title. My concern is about a technical point, which I hope is in order. The long title of the Bill, soon to become an Act, includes the words
remove the disqualification for membership".
However, the thrust of the Bill is about enabling people in another Parliament to sit in this Parliament, so it is about giving people a qualification.
The long title refers to removing the disqualification, whereas the short title is the Disqualifications Act. Did the Government decide on the short title and overrule the parliamentary draftsmen? Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the short title was proposed by the legal advisers and parliamentary draftsmen, or whether, as it is inconsistent with the proper long title, it was a political decision taken by the Government to make a word mean what it does not mean?
I think that I have made my point. I hope that it is clear. I have no wish to repeat it, but I urge the Minister to comment on it.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Is there any way in which you, as Chairman of the Committee, could enable us to hear a statement, perhaps from the official Opposition, explaining why they chose to deprive their leader, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) of the opportunity to challenge the Prime Minister this afternoon?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan.

The Chairman: Order. I have just ruled that it was not a point of order.

Mr. Maginnis: The interesting thing about the title of the Bill is that it reflects neither the pressures nor the purpose that motivated the Government to bring it before the House. As it deals with the qualification of Members of the Dail and the Seanad to be Members of this House or the House of Lords, I looked into the number of people who would be qualified to become Members of this Parliament. I discovered that there were 166 in the Dail and 60 in the Seanad.
I know many of the people who would qualify under the Disqualifications Act 2000. I have dined and lunched with quite a few of them in the past fortnight, and I know no one who has any interest whatever in the Act. In fact, the opposite is the case.

The Chairman: Order. I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he is talking about the Bill as a whole. He must direct himself to the narrow point contained in clause 4.

Mr. Maginnis: Indeed, Sir Alan, I want to stick with the title because it is seen as a misnomer. The Bill is seen as something designed exclusively to facilitate Sinn Fein-IRA. Whereas the House will give the Bill the imaginative name "Disqualifications Act 2000", in

Northern Ireland and among members of the press, the Bill has already been given a somewhat tasteless but, I reluctantly have to admit, appropriate acronym. That acronym is BITCH—Blair's Irish terrorist charter.
The significance of the Disqualifications Act 2000, or BITCH, as it will no doubt be called in future—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may realise that he has probably overstepped the mark of order. There is no way in which that name could be a substitute in parliamentary language for what is in the clause. He must address his remarks to the clause and whether he believes that it should stand part of the Bill. There are no amendments to the clause on the amendment paper. The question is whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maginnis: Thank you, Sir Alan. I agree that it is unfortunate that the Committee spends so long taking a Bill that is so objectionable to so many people—

The Chairman: Order. I do not want to hear any circuitous arguments. The hon. Gentleman must direct himself to the clause or I will ask him to resume his place.

Mr. Maginnis: Thank you, Sir Alan. The fact is that the Disqualifications Act 2000 will, whatever it is called, bring a degree—

The Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would take my advice. He may not talk about the Bill or its effects, or what people think about it. He may say only whether the Bill, or Act as it may become, should be cited as the Disqualifications Act 2000. That is the only point before the Committee. I will not allow him to extend further than that.

Mr. Maginnis: Sir Alan, you assist me in so far as you indicate in a reverse way the very point that I want to make. Whatever we call the Bill—I conclude with this point—it will invoke among hon. Members a huge amount of—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing his position. I call Mr. Ian Bruce.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My remarks will be both in order and very brief, Sir Alan.
We all understand that, when Bills are brought before us in Committee, they are considered line by line, with the exception of the long title and the trade description title that goes with the Bill. I ask the Minister to think carefully about how the Bill will be considered in the future. Lawyers and others will want to be able to find the relevant legislation. My colleagues have already said that the Bill is not a disqualification Bill but one that lifts disqualifications for people.
It may have been sensible if we had tabled some amendments to the title. The dichotomy and the catch-22 that the Committee is in is that, once the Government


have decided to produce and publish a Bill with a name such as the Disqualifications Bill, it is difficult for someone to table an amendment that would be in order.

The Chairman: Order. This is all very interesting, and the hon. Gentleman might like to find an opportunity for an Adjournment debate on the matter or to make a submission to the Procedure Committee, but it is not in order for him to discuss the matter in a clause 4 stand part debate. There was an opportunity to table amendments and none were tabled, so we are able to discuss only clause 4 as it stands.

Mr. Bruce: I was simply trying to make the point that, had I tried to table an amendment, it would have been refused—

The Chairman: Order. That may be an interesting procedural point, but it is not one that can be made at present. Does the hon. Gentleman have other points to make that are relevant?

Mr. Bruce: In all humility, I ask the Minister whether, before the Bill goes to the other place, there is a device by which I would not fall foul of the rules of procedure on tabling amendments, which would enable the Bill's title to be changed to something more appropriate. That is my simple plea.

Mr. Leigh: It is important that the short title of a Bill as important as this should adequately explain the Bill's purport to the general public. In some ways it does that. The word "disqualification" appears in the short title, so one would expect to find some reference to disqualification in the Bill and for the title adequately to reflect to a wider public what is contained in it. If we think in terms of a disqualification Bill, we presumably think of a Bill that disqualifies somebody.
Clause 2 makes it clear that the Bill disqualifies some people. It states:
No person may—

(a) stand for election as First Minister or as deputy First Minister, or be elected as such,
(b) be nominated to hold a Ministerial office, or
(c) be appointed as a junior Minister,

if he is a Minister of the Government of Ireland.
Therefore, the short title describes what is in clause 2.
However, clause 2 is only part of the Bill. My complaint about the short title is that clause 2 is not the heart and guts of the Bill. It was inserted after representations were made to the Government, but it is not what the Bill is really about. The Bill is not about disqualifying a Minister in the Irish Government; it is about qualifying people who are Members of the Irish Parliament to sit in this Parliament. That is my argument with it.
There is a political point to be made. The debate would have been much shorter if the Bill had simply been concerned with qualifying or disqualifying Members of the Irish Parliament. The Bill has aroused such passion because it is not about qualifying or disqualifying

Members of the Irish Parliament, but about qualifying known terrorists to use offices in this House of Commons. That is what infuriates people.

The Chairman: Order. That is going far too wide of this stand part debate on clause 4.

Mr. Leigh: It remains true, however, that a short title should adequately reflect to the general public what is in the Bill.
It may be said in the Bill's defence that it amends previous legislation. Clause 1 says that the Bill amends
Section 1(1)(e) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and section 1(1)(e) of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualification of member of the legislature of any country outside the Commonwealth)".
It may be argued that the short title does not adequately convey the political purport, the guts and the sense of the Bill, but I must turn my argument on its head and approach the matter from a different direction. Because the Bill amends previous legislation, it is probably true that the Government had no choice but to call it the Disqualifications Act 2000.
2.45 pm
I understand the Government's dilemma, caused by their uncertainty about how to frame their proposals. In the context of the procedure of the House, it would be interesting to know whether, when they introduce a Bill such as this that repeals earlier legislation, they must use the language—in terms of the short title—that was contained in that earlier legislation. I am not sure that they must, and I hope that the Minister will enlighten me.
Generally, Bills repeal or amend legislation in some way. It would be ridiculous for all of them to have the same titles as previous Bills, and I cannot believe that the Government are arguing for that. Why, then, are they calling this the Disqualifications Bill?

Mr. Robathan: In referring to the short title, my hon. Friend has identified the confusion that lies at the heart of the Bill. The fact that we cannot tell from the short title whether the Bill is intended to disqualify people or to qualify them demonstrates the error of making constitutional change off the cuff, as the Government have been doing.

The Chairman: Order. Hon. Members are in danger of repeating themselves. There is a limit to the number of words that can be devoted to this matter.

Mr. Leigh: There is, indeed, a limit to the number of words that may be devoted to this matter, but, Sir Alan, there is no limit to the anger that Conservative Members feel. That is why we shall continue to try to show the British public exactly what this grubby little Bill is trying to achieve.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The title of the Bill is a matter for parliamentary draftsmen; Ministers have not been involved in decisions of that kind. The Bill amends


legislation relating to disqualifications and adds a new disqualification relating to Irish Ministers who cannot be Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive.

Mr. Howard: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: No, I will not.

Mr. Howard: rose—

The Chairman: Order. Both Members must now take their seats. It is not clear to me whether the Minister is giving way. He must indicate that he is, or indicate otherwise; but if he does not give way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. O'Brien: I am not going to give way, Sir Alan.
I have made a genuine attempt to reply to the points that have been made, but it has sometimes been difficult for me to do so, because some hon. Members have not been able to get through their speeches without having to be brought to order. I have, however, tried to respond to points that seemed to me to penetrate the semantic discursiveness, bluster and other Tory games.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Sir Alan. The Minister may have forgotten that he was brought to order twice in succession earlier.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. I have had to say that more than once to the hon. Gentleman today.

Mr. Howard: Although I spoke on Second Reading, I did not intend to speak in this debate. However, I was astonished by what the Minister just said about clause 4. He told the Committee that clause 4 was a matter for the parliamentary draftsmen, and that Ministers had not been involved. Is he denying any ministerial responsibility for clause 4?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not realise that new Labour is allergic to clause IV?

Mr. Howard: That is a tempting suggestion, but I suspect that you, Sir Alan, would not look with approval on any attempt by me to respond to it.
There is a serious point, which is of absolute and direct relevance to whether clause 4 should stand part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. I was astonished that he did not give way to me, but I hope that he will deal specifically with this fundamental point: is he standing at the Dispatch Box and denying ministerial responsibility for clause 4?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, a former Home Secretary, puts his reputation on the line by making such silly points. We are clearly responsible for the Bill. The point that I was making was in reply to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who had asked me a specific question about whether Ministers had intervened to alter the view of the parliamentary draftsmen about the name on the Bill, to which I gave a clear indication that Ministers had not.
With his long experience in the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that Ministers are responsible for the Bill. He demeans himself by indulging in the sort of discursive tactics that have been deployed by the Tory party and in the games that Tory Members have visited on the Committee all night. We have seen bluster and discussions. The public will have seen the sort of Conservative party that has taken part in the debate.

The Chairman: Order. That is well outside the debate on clause 4 stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

DISQUALIFICATION FROM MINISTERIAL OFFICE IN UNITED KINGDOM

"No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland (the Oireachtas) may hold any Ministerial position, or be a Party Whip, or be a member of the Government of the United Kingdom.".—[Mr. William Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 8—Minister of the Crown—
No person elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and also to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland may become a Minister of the Crown.".
New clause 9—Disqualification from ministerial office in the United Kingdom—
.—(1) No person may be appointed to ministerial office in the government of the United Kingdom if he is a member of the government of Ireland.
(2) A minister in the government of the United Kingdom ceases to hold office on becoming a minister of the government of Ireland.".
Amendment No. 34, in title, line 4, after "Ireland", insert "or the United Kingdom".

Mr. Ross: We are coming to the end of the Bill. We have heard it described as a modest little measure, but those who over the past 23 hours have examined it continuously, line by line—each crossed "t" and dotted "i"—know that, although the Bill seems modest, it has vast implications. We have looked at it carefully. Sadly, the only bluster has been from Ministers, because we have had no answers out of them. That remains the case.
New clause 2 stands in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). New clause 8 is in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has tabled other amendments. They all try to accomplish the same end. They try to ensure that no person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland may hold any ministerial position—be it as a Whip, or any other position—in the UK Government. That is in broad terms the gist of my


new clause, but the hon. Members who have tabled amendments will no doubt speak to them and explain their thinking.
Yesterday, the Minister largely admitted the validity of the point at issue in the amendments, so the Government are in no position to resist the principle in the amendments. [Interruption.] I thought that I saw a faint smile starting to spread over the Minister's face and a half nod. I was beginning to hope that he was going to bounce to his feet and to explain that he was about to accept the amendments. Sadly, he is waiting to be convinced to the last fibre of his being that the principle that he supports is correctly set forth in the amendments.
I am fairly easy about which amendment the Minister accepts. Naturally, I hope that he will accept the one that is in my name. The Minister may, however, decide to opt for new clause 8—which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stone, who has been quite active in our debates.
Liberal Democrat Members have expressed clear concerns in new clause 9—which is perhaps only a probing amendment, although I hope it is not. I hope that they will press their new clause to a Division. We should have a Division on all three of the new clauses in this group, to determine which one the Committee favours. We have plenty of time to do so; the 10 o'clock motion still stands, and we could go right through the night again.

Mr. Swayne: New clause 2, which was tabled by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), differs from the other new clauses and the amendment in this group in proposing to exclude members of the legislature of Ireland from serving as a party Whip in the United Kingdom. Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the Committee as to why he has included that office as an exclusion in new clause 2? Does he extend the exclusion to the position of Opposition Whip, or does it apply only to the position of Government Whip?

Mr. Ross: As you will know from your own experience in the House, Sir Alan, there is barely an hon. Member who does not bear on his or her back the deep and vivid marks of the Whips. The same is true in every legislature in the world. Time and again, Whips drive unwilling Members into the Lobby. The Government must have their business, but the duty of Opposition parties must be to oppose the Government and to explore what Ministers are trying to do, so that Opposition Members are able—for the benefit of our constituents and of citizens of the United Kingdom generally—to gain a clearer understanding of Government policy. So often, however, although we labour long and hard, ultimately, we have very little to show for it.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) should therefore know why I want to include Whips in the new clause. People who have gained experience and learned their trade in a Whips office in a foreign state should in no circumstances be given a position of responsibility in, or be allowed anywhere near, the United Kingdom legislature. God knows we have so many problems with our home-grown variety of Whip that we do not want to import any.
I see the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) shaking in his shoes, and I appreciate the bad experiences that he must have had with Whips.

Mr. Miller: My Whip is sitting right next to me.

Mr. Ross: My Whip is sitting beside me too. Although I have served as a Whip, I have always believed that, if one wants to achieve good results and full co-operation, it is better to use kindness and purr like a cat than to use a cat-o'-nine-tails. I believe that a reasoned approach and careful explanation of the merits of the Government's and the party's position will always produce a far greater harvest of benefits than the thuggery in which, sadly, the major party's Whips occasionally indulge.
In the years since I was first elected to the House and walked through the doors of the Chamber, I have known many Whips. To my cost, I have learned that they are people not to be trifled with in any circumstances.

Mr. Fabricant: Mr. Martin, may I say how nice it is to see you in the Chamber, in your Chair?
Does the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) agree that, earlier today, the Government conceded that there is an argument that there should not be a conflict of interest between those who are in positions of power in the Government and those who are Members of the Dail? Ministers also said that they were minded to accept amendment No. 7. Should not Ministers therefore think that there would be more continuity in their position if they also accepted new clause 2?

Mr. Ross: That is the very point that I was making at the beginning of my speech. The plain truth is that the Government are duty bound—they are forced by their own admission, made earlier in our debates at about 4 am—to do so. That admission was made at about the same time as Ministers admitted that the Bill is a result of discussions that they had with Sinn Fein-IRA. These things are emblazoned on my mind. I am conscious that getting admissions from the Government was like squeezing blood from a rather dry stone.

Mr. Martin Bell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to one who has no Whips' marks on his back what purpose is served by these extended and lamentable proceedings?

3 pm

Mr. Ross: The reason for the lengthy proceedings is to try and get answers from the Government. The hon. Gentleman bears on his body the marks of his previous occupation, in which he made assiduous efforts to get at the truth. We are merely carrying on the hon. Gentleman's assiduity in that respect.

Mr. Swayne: Some of us are entering the 22nd hour scrutinising the Bill—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I will not tolerate any discussion of the length of our proceedings. I know as


well as anyone else how lengthy they have been. Hon. Members must confine their remarks to the new clause and amendments.

Mr. Ross: I accept your strictures, Mr. Martin, but I hope that you can tell me whether it is in order for me to respond to an unjustified attack?

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the amendments and the new clause.

Mr. Ross: In that case, I shall certainly try and stay in order.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The difficulty for the hon. Gentleman is that he is used to giving straight answers to straight questions, unlike the right hon. Gentleman who normally answers questions on a Wednesday.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Ross: I agree that the hon. Gentleman was slightly wide of the mark with that remark. However, I understand his frustration that, because of the Government's delaying tactics, he has no opportunity to question the Prime Minister.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not talk about the Prime Minister. The House is in Committee, and hon. Members must confine themselves to consideration of the amendments.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Howarth: I believe that it is, Mr. Martin. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was trying to explain why he has moved his new clause. The intervention from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) was out of order, not the remarks of the hon. Member for East Londonderry.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ross: As you say, Mr. Martin, we must get on. The Minister must be tired and may have work to attend to. I do not want to keep him from that.
The Government earlier conceded the principle behind these important amendments. They should merely accept the amendments. New clause 8 states:
No person elected to the parliament of the United Kingdom and also to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland may become a Minister of the Crown.
It is clear that the new clause recognises that a United Kingdom Cabinet Minister would be in a peculiar and impossible position. His duty would be to the people, the Crown and Parliament.
Such a Minister would normally be a Privy Councillor, and certain information would be given to him in strict confidence. That was alluded to some 20 hours ago. It

would be difficult enough to keep such information from his friends and colleagues, but if he made the occasional slip it would be understood and the matter treated with due respect and confidence by his colleagues in the House. That would not necessarily be true if he made a mistake when dealing with a Minister who was a citizen of a foreign country with responsibilities to that nation, its constitution and its people. Such a person might use any information gleaned in that way to the benefit of that nation rather than that of the United Kingdom. I think that we should guard against that happening by making dead certain that the folk who make up the Government of the United Kingdom are citizens of this nation and no other.
I have already explained why the party Whips are included in this proposal. In addition, new clause 2 refers to
a member of the Government of the United Kingdom.".
As has been said time and again, the plain truth is that people find it difficult to get the right words on to the amendment paper. I put down this wording, not because I was confident that it was right but to try and ensure that I caught all those not covered who could be considered as Members of the Government.

Mr. Levitt: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I do not know whether you noticed, but the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), entered the Chamber a few minutes ago, took one look around and left in disgust. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] Is it permissible to inquire of the Father of the House whether he has ever seen such blatant filibustering in all the 50-odd years he has been a Member of the House?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members, including the Father of the House, can come and go as they please. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ross: That is not the recollection that I had of the Father of the House, whom I have known for a long time.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not need any more references to the Father of the House. He does not deserve to be treated in this manner. We must get to the amendments before us—that is the duty of hon. Members.

Mr. Ross: Perhaps the Father of the House was so enthralled with the strong defence that has been made—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means has commented on the Standing Orders. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House longer than I, and he knows that he must keep to the narrow amendments before us.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. You told my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) that his point was not a point of order. If it is not, according to your ruling, that is the end of the matter—I would not dream of challenging your ruling. The speeches of Opposition Members are more or less in order—although I notice that you and your predecessors, Mr. Martin, have had to intervene to ensure that they are, certainly in the past few hours—but would you not agree that the proceedings are being unnecessarily prolonged?


[HON. MEMBERS: "By bogus points of order."] Although that may be in order, surely it is obvious that Conservative and Unionist Members are deliberately prolonging the proceedings as much as possible.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is for the Chair to give guidance to hon. Members if they stray from an amendment or a new clause. That sometimes happens to hon. Members, so I am giving the Committee guidance. No one, as far as I am concerned, has been involved in causing any undue delay. If they did, I would give a ruling. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), however, is straying from the amendments, and I appeal to him to return to them.

Mr. Ross: The problem is that although I try to stick to the amendments, I am constantly interrupted and I have to respond.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman want to—

Mr. Fabricant: Interrupt?

Mr. Ross: I thought that the correct word was "intervene". I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In discussing new clause 2, he mentioned the power of the Whip—[Interruption.] Mr. Martin, I ask for your protection to allow me to continue.
Does the hon. Member for East Londonderry think that the power of the Whips was exemplified by their marked interventions in points of order earlier? [Interruption.]

Mr. Ross: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The amendment and the new clauses do not refer to the power of the Whips; they refer to the positions held by hon. Members. We should be talking about the positions of Ministers, not about their power. I call Mr. Ross.

Mr. Swayne: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene before the hon. Member for East Londonderry has even risen from his seat.

Mr. Ross: We are concerned about the influence of the Whips, should they be appointed to positions of power. In those circumstances, we should bear my points in mind although, after all these hours in Committee, I am not putting them as concisely—

Mr. Swayne: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. Will he give way?

Mr. Ross: Of course.

Mr. Swayne: You are entirely correct, Mr. Martin. The point relates to the position of the Whips, not to their

influence. My hon. Friend has begun to see sinister conspiracies and influences where there are none. Whatever the position of the Whips may have been, they have manifestly been unable to save Labour's 1,000th day.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are going far too wide. I plead with the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who is a long-serving Member, to remain within the scope of the amendments.

Mr. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I want to draw my remarks to a close, because several other Members want to speak.
The intent of the new clauses is clear and the wording is reasonably good. In the light of that and of your strictures, Mr. Martin, and bearing in mind the fact that I am continually interrupted, I commend the new clauses to the Committee. I hope for support from Conservative Members and from my colleagues and for a happy and sensible response—for once—from the Minister.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: It falls to me to respond to this part of the debate. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) referred to the lamentable proceedings of the Committee. I do not want to distract attention from the debate, but we have arrived at new clause 2 after a sitting of the Committee that began yesterday. Although you keep good order, according to the House rules, Mr. Martin, I think that the public will judge that last night showed the House at its worst.
The new clauses have been included because there is concern as to a conflict of interest—

Mr. Brady: rose—

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Cash: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. When I stand, the hon. Gentleman must be seated. I hope that his is a genuine point of order. There have been so many points of order that the flow of the Committee's proceedings has been somewhat delayed.

Mr. Cash: New clause 8 is tabled in my name. Will you assure me, Mr. Martin, that it will be called? I have heard references to other provisions that are not in the group that we are discussing. I want to be sure that my new clause will be called.

The First Deputy Chairman: It is quite clear from the selection list that new clause 8 is grouped with new clause 2. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to catch my eye if he wants to take part in the proceedings.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will no doubt find that his point of order—like many others that were made during the night—does not amount


to much. It is merely another attempt to delay proceedings. However, let us continue with the substance of what we are supposed to be here to deal with.
3.15 pm
A conflict of interests may arise where a Member of the Irish Parliament becomes a Minister in the House of Commons. I should like to set out why I believe that in some instances that may well be the case, but in other instances it may not. There are already ways in which that problem can be guarded against without necessitating some of the amendments before us.
Some hon. Members in the Chamber may feel that the amendments are in line with clause 2, which prevents Members of the Irish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly from being Ministers in both places. However, I shall explain why that is not the case.
When we began these debates on Monday, I set out at length why we felt that a conflict of interests did not necessarily arise from an individual being a member of one legislature and being a Minister in another legislature. That may well be a matter for the electorate of the various constituencies concerned to decide, in which case we can leave it to the people to decide. If a person becomes a Minister and decides that they have a particular responsibility to the electorate in the area, it will be up to the electorate in the other area to decide whether the ministerial role is appropriate for their representative.

Mr. Gale: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will not. I shall make progress and then, towards the end of my speech, I may give way to the hon. Gentleman and one or two others.
However, hon. Members might hold views about the propriety of dual mandates in principle. This is not the right Bill to give rise to a discussion of whether current disqualification provisions need to be reviewed. The provisions as they stand enable members from distinct legislatures to take up seats in more than one legislature. For example, we know from previous debates on the Bill that members of the Commonwealth are at least permitted in principle, if not in practice—there are none—to be Members also of the House.
The Bill fits with the established principles in our constitution at the moment. If hon. Members wish to change that part of our constitution, that is a matter for them. This is not the place to do it. They may find some suitable vehicle to do it. Some hon. Members who are present may well feel that they wish gratuitously to impose a ban on Commonwealth legislators, but I do not propose to go into the reasons for or against that.
I can see how the holding of ministerial positions in more than one legislature, especially if they are in two different countries, could lead to complications and conflicts of interest. In that sense, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and I are not too far apart. We are far apart on the detail of these amendments, but on some of the principles, at least in terms of ministerial conflict, we are not too far apart. That is why clause 2 was included in the Bill. Indeed, the Scotland Act 1998 makes similar provision at section 44(3). That section prevents Members of the Scottish Executive from also being Ministers in the United Kingdom Government.

A Scottish Minister would be required to relinquish their position in the Scottish Executive before becoming a Minister at Westminster.

Mr. Gale: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later. I have already said that I will, and I shall not give way to him now.
Some may say that the provision in section 44(3) of the Scotland Act 1998 is similar to what is proposed by new clause 9. However, there are differences, which I shall explain. Clause 2 was included in the Bill because the procedures followed to select Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly differ from the procedures followed in other UK legislatures. That is an important distinction. In the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Westminster Parliament, the Prime Minister or First Minister has a discretion in choosing their Cabinet.
Any Prime Minister or First Minister would seriously consider matters such as conflict of interest before choosing any person to serve in their Government—even more so if they were contemplating selecting a Cabinet Member who was already a Minister, or even a member of another legislature. It is difficult to envisage that that would happen for any prolonged period. Likewise, should a situation arise where the Prime Minister or First Minister felt that a member of the Cabinet was not able to fulfil their role adequately for whatever reason, he or she would see to it that that person was no longer a Minister.
There is already a de facto protection against the sorts of problems that the hon. Member for East Londonderry has put before the House, and we discussed some of the principles behind those issues on Second Reading.
That is not the case with the Northern Ireland Assembly. Here, Ministers are selected automatically by the d'Hondt mechanism, as set out in the Good Friday agreement. The First Minister does not have that sort of discretion in choosing the Cabinet and the Executive, and cannot therefore have the same sort of discretion in dismissing Ministers who may give rise to conflicts of interests.
Under these circumstances, clause 2 was thought to be necessary to provide a legislative safeguard. I am not without sympathy for some of the points raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, but we have dealt with them in terms of the de facto practice within our constitutional arrangements. Methods are there to deal with such matters. We recognised that, in Northern Ireland, the situation is different and we needed special provision.

Mr. Gale: At an early hour of this morning, when the Minister was not on the Front Bench—I do not chide him for that—we discussed this issue. It was conceded that while clause 2 was, as the Minister said, relevant to Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, it had no bearing on the matters under discussion in these clauses.
Those clauses—as was conceded by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the small hours of the morning—relate to the right of a Minister to be a Minister of State or Secretary of State, even for Northern Ireland, and to be a Minister in a Government of the Irish republic. Patently, that would mean that a


Minister of the Crown would be a Minister of another sovereign Government, and there could be a direct conflict of interest. That is a matter of record and, with great respect, I do not think that praying clause 2 in aid counts a fig in this matter.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman will know that these matters have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. However, in cases where it is possible for there to be a decision by Prime Ministers or First Ministers—at least in legislatures in Scotland, Britain and Wales—the Executive has the ability to determine the issues. From what the hon. Gentleman says, I think that he accepts the constitutional situation.
However, the hon. Gentleman is putting an entirely different matter to me—the issue of whether a Northern Irish Executive member who was also appointed to become a member of the Dublin Executive would be in a different position. We are seeking to work our way through the constitutional arrangements to ensure that we get those things right.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that that is precisely the issue that the hon. Member wants to raise with me.

Mr. Ross: I do want to ask about that. I am curious as to whether the term "Minister" always includes the term "junior Minister", as that is not in the Bill. Will the Minister take on board the fact that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, once elected, then become Ministers of the Government of Ireland. I am not sure if he is aware that if one has to resign, they both go.
The problem that I see is that clause 2(2) does not mention the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister who are different from all the other Ministers and junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. Will the Minister recognise that and carefully reconsider the position?

Mr. O'Brien: I was not entirely able to pick up the essence of the hon. Gentleman's point. Will he encapsulate it for me again, so that I can deal with it?

Mr. Ross: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are as one. If one falls, they both fall. Are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister looked upon as Ministers within the Northern Ireland Executive? That does not appear to be the case according to clause 2(2).

Mr. O'Brien: I am advised that they are, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. I shall talk to those who advise me on the legal issues and perhaps I can then provide the hon. Gentleman with a definitive written answer.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister explained perfectly reasonably the difference between the way in which Ministers are chosen in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the way in which they are chosen in the UK Parliament. Does he not accept, however, that in one respect there is a similarity between them? One does not have to offer one's

services to be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly just as one does not have to offer one's services in the UK Parliament. Although the First Minister does not control which parties receive the nominations and who comes forward, we could legislate to ensure that no one who is a Minister in the Government of Ireland shall allow himself to be nominated or appointed as a Minister in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. We could legislate for that and wrap up the different Northern Ireland and UK Parliaments in one amendment.

Mr. O'Brien: I should like to consider the hon. Gentleman's point. On the face of it, it is reasonable. I shall think about the issues and, again, I might write to him.
Let me make it clear that the word "Minister" includes the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister under section 7(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1988 and that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister follow the normal procedures for filling a vacancy. I make it clear, however, that I give no undertakings to accept the new clauses, but I shall consider in a reasonable way the points that have been made.
It is not right for the legislature here, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament to seek to circumscribe the freedom of Prime Ministers and First Ministers in their choice of Government. To some extent, that would interfere with the way in which Governments operate. We took a view about how we set up devolution in Scotland and Wales and if those two resulting bodies attempted to create restrictions, I would prefer that the initiative came at least with consultation initiated by the devolved bodies.
The proper way for the British, Scottish and Welsh legislatures to deal with these issues is for the First Ministers or the Prime Minister to deal with potential conflicts of interest. Consequently, I am not prepared to accept the new clauses, but I shall consider the issues and write to hon. Members in due course. We have not got entirely closed minds on the issues of conflicts of interest. In due course, some further opportunity might well present itself. If a conflict of interest were obvious, we might at that stage be able to take on board some of the points raised.

Mr. Simon Hughes: When we began Committee stage at 5.30 pm on Tuesday, little did I think that the sole new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats would not be reached until 3.30 pm on Wednesday. I was advised that it would all be over by midnight, but that was not to be.

Mr. Bermingham: So keep it short.

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will see that all of my speeches and those of other Liberal Democrat members have been short. We have been constructive and concise on each issue and we shall be so on this one.

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman but once.

Mr. Bermingham: But once I ask. Having set his own good example, the hon. Gentleman should follow it, ensure that the rest of his party does so as well, and say nothing.

Mr. Hughes: If one tables new clauses—

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to assist the hon. Gentleman. I absolve him, unlike other Opposition Members, of prevarication, delay and discursion.

Mr. Hughes: If benediction from a junior Home Office Minister helps me, I am grateful for it. To those who came this afternoon thinking that they were to watch play on centre court but who have instead ended up watching matches on courts Nos. 1 or 14, we apologise, even though the problem was not of our making. I hope that they feel that, to a certain extent, they got their money's worth.
New clause 9 is similar to, but different from, new clause 2. It deals with an issue that has come up in several contexts, but is most properly addressed in this group of amendments. In our view, no one should be able to hold simultaneously ministerial office in the Irish Government and ministerial office in the British Government or in the Northern Ireland Government.
I concur with the Minister's first point. We have always argued that there is no necessary incompatibility with being a member of two legislatures. We share that view with the Government. We have also accepted that someone might manage to be a Minister in one and a Back Bencher in another. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has argued, on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and other colleagues, that no one should be able to be a Minister in both. We agree.
There is a strong conflict of interests. Someone who is a member of the Government in one country cannot simultaneously and without conflicts of interest arising be a member of the Government of another sovereign country—

Mr. Duncan: Or in the legislature?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has not been here much during our debate, so he might not realise that there is a difference. A Member of a legislature represents his or her constituents and expresses his or her views, but does not determine the policy of the Executive. Such influence is clearly wielded by any member of the Government. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will see that there is broad agreement on the fact that there is a difference of substance.
The Minister suggested that there is a difference between Northern Ireland ministerial positions, which is why clause 2 contains specific provision in that respect, and other ministerial appointments. He said that there is, to some extent, less absolute control in the hands of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister of Northern

Ireland, simply because people are nominated and must then be accepted into the Cabinet. That is true, but I repeat, there are easy ways by which one could perfectly reasonably formulate the bar that applies when someone considers the invitation or puts him or herself forward. If a person is a member of the Government of Northern Ireland in the Assembly and a member of the Government of Ireland, there is a conflict. There is also conflict in respect of a Minister in the Westminster Government and in the Dublin Government.

Mr. O'Brien: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is saying that in theory that could happen, but in practice it will not. We know it will not. Will he set out the circumstances that he can envisage in reality where such an aberration occurs? I very much doubt that a British Prime Minister of whatever party would be happy with such a situation, and accordingly would not appoint. I very much doubt also whether the electorate, who watch these proceedings, would tolerate it.

Mr. Hughes: Although it would be unlikely that a British Prime Minister would choose somebody to go into his Government who was also in the Irish Government, or vice versa, it is less unlikely that in future in a coalition Government in Northern Ireland, the chief Minister, who in the present circumstances might not be a Unionist, might see it as perfectly possible to have someone in his Government who might also be able to be, and appointed to be, in the Government in Dublin. A member of the Social Democratic and Labour party could quite reasonably be in both Administrations.
The Minister asked me whether what I described would be likely in the real world. The entire Bill is in large measure about things that do not happen in that world. The Bill is about whether Members of Commonwealth Parliaments will be Members of the Westminster Parliament. The Minister said that there are not any such Members in that position and that there never have been. I understand that no one has previously served in a Parliament in this country while simultaneously being a Member of a Commonwealth country Parliament, but I stand to be corrected.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right. I made the point when I was contributing to the debate. I am not aware of such a situation. However, the hon. Gentleman said that that is what the Bill is about. That is not right. The Bill is about issues in relation to Ireland.

Mr. Hughes: The Bill is principally about Irish issues, but one of the reasons that would be deployed for doing what the Government are asking us to agree to is that it would put the Irish Parliament and its Members in a similar relationship to that which exists between Members of the United Kingdom Parliament and Commonwealth parliamentarians.
Many contributions have been made by Northern Ireland Members, Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members on the basis that there could be Commonwealth Members in Commonwealth Parliaments and the Westminster Parliament, but that has never happened. That is as much an unreality and an unlikelihood as the issue that we are debating.
I want to be brief because I always have been. Additionally, I promised the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) that I would be. The Minister was helpful in his response. I deduce that he was helpful both to the hon. Member for East Londonderry and to me. He said that Ministers in the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office would ascertain whether it was possible, without an undertaking, to accommodate our concern. I think that the Bill would be more acceptable within the limited remit of what it is intended to do if although it allowed dual legislature membership, whatever we think of that, and legislative membership in one parliament and Executive membership in the other, it did not allow ministerial positions in both. That would make this a much more logical and defensible Bill.
The Minister knows that there is a dispute between us as to why we are having the Bill now and why we are having to have it so quickly. If that is to happen, I assume that the Bill will be going speedily to the House of Lords and that it will return to us speedily. If not, there is no logic in it being before us on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, so as to get it through the House, with the loss of Prime Minister's questions and a day's business. I hope that the circumstances will not preclude serious consideration of the new clause and those that are similar to it, so that if necessary we can amend the Bill and not suffer from one that was rushed through and therefore was a less good measure than it might have been.

Mr. O'Brien: I will consider the issues that the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have raised. I bear in mind what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has said about time scales. I have given no undertaking to do anything in the Bill. I have said that if we find that there are issues, a further opportunity might become available to consider them.
We have had lengthy discussions on the Bill for difficult and not entirely constructive reasons. However, given the length of time that we have spent on the measure, it is difficult to argue that it is being rushed. As I said earlier, I will examine the issues that the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for East Londonderry raised.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that. The postscript to my remarks is that, for reasons that I outlined earlier, Liberal Democrat Members cannot support new clause 8. It would rule out a constitutionally compatible provision, which would not create the same conflict of interest as dual ministerial office.

Mr. Cash: It is highly appropriate that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned new clause 8, although he said that he could not support it. If he will be good enough to listen to my arguments, he may change his mind.
New clause 8 simply proposes that:
No person elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and also to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland may become a Minister of the Crown.

We have had many debates about who may qualify for or be disqualified from membership of the House under the Bill. However, new clause 8 tackles the case of someone who has a dual mandate for the Dail and the House of Commons. Such a person could not be a Minister of the Crown if the new clause was accepted.
Why have we tabled the new clause? We have established that the main purpose of disqualification apart from ensuring that hon. Members are fit and proper to sit in the House—there is no reason to suppose that Members of the Dail would not fall into that category—is to ensure that Members can carry out their duties and responsibilities free from undue pressures from other sources. A Member of another legislature—the Dail in the case of the Bill—would, through party arrangements, whipping systems, and the policies and underlying constitutional arrangements to which he would subscribe, be subjected to pressures from other sources. In many instances, there would be undue pressures.
It is a clear principle that a Member of the House—a Minister of the Crown would be such a Member—should be free from possible conflicts of interest, which might distort his behaviour as an independent member of the legislature and his freedom to represent the best interests of his constituents. A Minister of the Crown could easily fall into difficulties. He would also invariably be a Privy Councillor and would have to take the Privy Council oath. That binds him to secrecy, a range of confidential matters, and various commitments, which I do not need to set out in detail.

Mr. Bermingham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but, although the Conservative party currently has no Scottish or Welsh Members of Parliament, does he agree that there is a problem when people are both Members of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly and Members of this House? Why should there be a distinction between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Dail?

Mr. Cash: There is a simple answer: the United Kingdom and Ireland are different sovereign nations. It would be surprising if a Member of the Dail disputed that he was a Member of the legislature of a sovereign nation. Devolution confuses people, even the hon. Gentleman, with his forensic skills. People confuse constitutional principles and the basis on which the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly were established, and the Dail, which is the Parliament of a sovereign nation.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that his new clause sends a powerful message to those Ministers of the Crown from Scottish constituencies who litter the Treasury Bench? If Scotland became independent they, too, would be excluded from taking part in the operation and running of the remainder of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is right. In the middle of last night, I referred to what Charles Stewart Parnell himself thought about the relationship between the Irish Members and this legislature. It is perfectly clear from a


memorandum and other statements that when the home rule Bill was being drawn up in 1886 he concluded that it was in the interests of the Irish nation that the Irish Members be excluded from the House. It is extraordinary to have come full circle—for reasons as yet completely undisclosed—whereby we are encouraging the Irish Members to become Members of the House, without a full constitutional settlement of the kind arrived at in 1801.
We are also taking the whole process in completely the opposite direction from the points and principles suggested by Charles Stewart Parnell, who had to go through every nut and bolt and every crevice and crack of the procedures of the House during the home rule saga to achieve his objective. Anybody who has visited the magnificent monument to Parnell in Dublin knows that the inscription specifically refers to national sovereignty. To paraphrase, no person should stand in the way of the march of a nation. If one recognises retrospectively that that was a legitimate aspiration for the Irish people, it is extraordinary, to say the least, that we have gone full circle and are contradicting the very principles on which his battle for home rule was established. That is a historical question.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cash: I am more than happy to take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman, but will he pause for a moment? I want to take another look at the Privy Council.
The Minister—and, indeed, other Ministers right up to the Prime Minister—may envisage a person elected to the Republic of Ireland legislature becoming a Minister as well, but it would be perfectly obvious to any such person who intended to stand that he would have to swear the Oath of Allegiance, as membership of the House involves swearing allegiance to the Crown. In addition, the special and extremely tight Privy Council oath and the requirements of confidentiality would, I suggest, cause considerable difficulties for a person elected to another legislature—in this case, that of the Republic of Ireland.
A substantial book, "The Irish Constitution" by Mr. J. M. Kelly, which has run to its third edition, provides ample scope for a filibuster should hon. Members want to engage in one, which I am sure they would not. It clearly states that there is no requirement to swear an oath of allegiance to the Dail because it operates under a different constitutional arrangement. We must remember that Ireland has a written constitution, and there are requirements inherent in the Irish position.
Many of us love Ireland and want it to succeed—it is doing extremely well now. It is second in the table of economic success in the European Union, and many congratulations to them on that. The fact remains that incredibly important obstacles arise from the proposition that a person elected to either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland and to the Parliament of the United Kingdom should be allowed to become a Minister of the Crown.
As we have had a Privy Council for Northern Ireland since the separation of Ireland as a whole, the question is whether there should be an equivalent position if anyone were to seek to become a member of both legislatures and a Minister of the Crown. It is difficult to imagine how the Minister could answer such questions. Leaving aside the

interrelationship between the membership of the two legislatures, if we were to focus on the qualities and constitutional position of a Minister of the Crown, we would see that many other problems would arise in respect of a member of any legislature, especially a Member of the legislature of Ireland.
I shall quote from the constitutional volume of "Halsbury's Laws of England", much of which will be obvious to Labour Members. It states:
Each Minister is responsible and must answer to Parliament for his or her own acts and policies and for all that is done in his or her department…In giving an account to Parliament a minister must not knowingly mislead Parliament…ministers are expected to give an account of their departments and answer questions in Parliament, they may refuse to answer questions.
That is the basis on which they have to operate. These are constitutional duties.
It would be difficult for the requirements of accountability to be fulfilled if a member of, for example, the legislature of the Republic of Ireland was properly conducting his duties to fulfil the requirements of his election to that legislature. For heaven's sake, it is our first responsibility, as it is in Ireland, to have regard to the manner in which we handle questions on behalf of our constituents. If a person was a Minister of the Crown in the United Kingdom and a member of the legislature in Ireland, it would be impossible for him to fulfil his obligations to the persons who had elected him in Ireland.
I am sure that the Minister will recognise that this is a substantial point. It is a practical question. Issues also arise with regard to timetabling.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman, who did not give me the courtesy of giving way at the appropriate time, but these things happen. Must we listen to rubbish and criticism of Scottish Ministers and Welsh Assembly Ministers? They are being told that they cannot exercise their functions properly if they are also a Member of this House. Surely that has nothing to do with the Bill or with the new clause that I think stands in the hon. Gentleman's name.

The First Deputy Chairman: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman carefully, and he has kept in good order. I have absolutely no complaint about the way in which he has conducted himself.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful, Mr. Martin. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for the point that he has just made, but this is an important question. The Bill has not been invented by us. It has been introduced in circumstances of great secrecy, or at any rate it arises out of meetings that we think were secret. We have not received answers. I am trying to point out some of the anomalies that inevitably arise. I am emphatically not engaging in a filibuster of any description.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's dissertation, and a learned dissertation it is. The point that I made in my speech was that, although many things can happen in theory, especially in unwritten constitutions—I do not want to debate the extent of our unwritten constitution now—in practice, they do not happen. There may be all sorts of theoretical issues that he could engender, as he has been trying to do in the past


16 minutes, but they will probably not arise because Prime Ministers in the various countries will be aware of the consequences of having someone in their Government who is a member of a legislature in a foreign country.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the Minister, but what it clearly does—

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I ask the Minister to withdraw the word "foreign". We are all part of Europe.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order. It is a matter for debate.

Mr. Cash: Excuse me for laughing for a moment, Mr. Martin. Where is Europe?
The Minister raises an interesting point. The points that I am making could be regarded as theoretical, but if they are, what is the purpose of the Bill? Over and over again, we have heard that the Bill raises situations that are thought to be unlikely to occur. Yet there must have been a reason behind it.

Mr. O'Brien: What the hon. Gentleman is trying to put together is not really the argument. He is putting the theoretical case that someone could be a member of a Government in one country and a member of a legislature in another. I accept the issue about the European Union, and I hope that we do not need to go into that. The point here is that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) sat at one stage in the Irish Senate when he already had a seat in this House. We are not necessarily talking about plain theories. We are dealing with something that may well happen and we in the House may not wish to discourage it in his case. He is an extremely well respected Member. While in respect of the Commonwealth, the matter may be theoretical, in the context of Ireland and the United Kingdom, they may not necessarily be so.

Mr. Cash: In that case, the argument that I am advancing becomes even more substantial. The Minister is helping to make my case. I need not pursue that point any further.
The second point relating to the attributes of Ministers of the Crown is collective responsibility, the elements of which are unanimity, confidentiality and confidence. It would become apparent very quickly if someone came in from another country—with respect to this amendment, from the Irish legislature—that collective responsibility could be affected by the fact that the person who was a Minister of the Crown would not necessarily be present at any time and could not answer on behalf of the Crown as and when required, for example, to private notice questions? It does not take much imagination and I do not need to go through all the permutations to show the practical as well as constitutional difficulties that would inevitably arise if we created the situation that the Bill is in danger of creating.

Mr. Hogg: Most important is the duty of confidentiality. If a Member of the Irish Parliament who happened to be a Minister in the Irish Government learned

some information, and, at the same time, he learned information in his capacity as a Minister of a Parliament or Assembly somewhere else in the United Kingdom, his duties of confidentiality would be torn and he could not perform the two roles.

Mr. Cash: The only way in which that could be resolved, and the potentiality of conflict of a kind that we discussed earlier reduced, would be if there was one country, along the lines described by Norman Davies in "History of the Isles", to bring back one province within the EU which would then absorb and subsume all the constitutional difficulties which arose from the histories of the individual isles, but then to create a new province and reduce the conflict. Why these arrangements are being entered into remains a significant puzzle to many of us. No explanation has been given, and the principle on which they appear to be presented is in direct contradiction to the objectives of Parnell and the others when they sought home rule and said that they did not want to be members of this legislature. That I find difficult.
I should be grateful if the Minister could answer that question. There must have been discussions. Did it not occur to anyone to ask about the origins of home rule and Eire? I have no problem with the idea of separate nations—quite the opposite—but where they exist it is incongruous to have Ministers directing policy in this Parliament while having potentially been elected in another country. I do not think for a minute that there are not vast numbers of people from Ireland, by origin, birth and so on, who are Members of this House. We know that, and what a good thing it is. The Minister's own name can perhaps be traced to an Irish connection. The Kings of Ireland were O'Briens.

Mr. O'Brien: I will not go into my family history but deal with the constitution and the law. I do not intend to reply at length in rebuttal because I have dealt with most of the issues in my speech and in interventions.
I have been trying to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the nation. I take it that he would not argue that the concept of the Irish nation put forward by Parnell is the same as that put forward by the Ulster Unionists today.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am interested in the history of Ireland, but not at the moment. We must keep within the confines of the new clause.

Mr. Cash: I accept that, Mr. Martin.
I come now to the question of legal accountability. All Ministers and servants of the Crown are accountable to the courts for the legality of their actions and can be held civilly and criminally liable. That raises a number of interesting questions about immunities, whether membership of another legislature would give privileges which would prevent a person from being accountable in the way that I have described, and whether people would be able, or would be required to, appear. Similar situations could arise with regard to membership of the Select Committees, the evidence that they give to such Committees as Ministers of the Crown, and so on.
It is abundantly clear that there are a huge number of practical and constitutional reasons why these arrangements should not be entered into.
4 pm
This is not merely an analysis of theoretical possibilities. The Bill has led us into a situation that requires us, as Members of Parliament, to ask the questions, to examine the evidence, to insist on answers, and to quantify the practicalities of the proposals. We have heard no answers from the Minister to any of those questions, although he has risen several times and claimed to be answering them. I could raise many other questions, but I do not want to engage in an unreasonable amount of discussion just for the sake of it.
You will have noticed, Mr. Martin—I can tell things from the expression on your face occasionally—that I have here some substantial works of reference, to which I could refer at length without departing for a minute from your requirements and those of the Committee. I would not filibuster; I would not be repetitious; I would break no rules. But in deference to you, Mr. Martin, and to the Committee, I will eschew the attractions and temptations presented by one of the longest filibusters in history, and will confine myself to what I have already said.

Mr. Gale: I do not intend to detain the Committee for long.
This is a one-page Bill, but it is not the modest little measure that some have termed it. It is, in fact, a very bad Bill, and constitutionally dangerous. The new clauses go a small way towards mitigating some of the constitutional damage that would be done if the Bill were passed unamended. I hope that it will be thrown out in its entirety on Third Reading, but I want to concentrate on the new clauses that we are discussing.
I am sorry that the Minister found it necessary to criticise Conservative Members for engaging in a prolonged debate. I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin, and to your fellow Chairmen—you have sat here throughout the night, and today—for confirming that, by and large, our deliberations have been in order.
In the early hours of this morning, when we debated clause 2, we engaged in a discussion which, we were told, related more properly to the new clauses that we are debating now. The Minister dismissed my intervention then; let me rehearse the arguments yet again.
In promoting clause 2, the Minister's colleague prayed in aid the necessity to draw a distinction between the Assembly of Northern Ireland and the Parliament of the Irish Republic, and explained—not in great detail, but fairly clearly—why it was appropriate for clause 2 to be enacted. He said, in a nutshell, that it was not proper for a Member to be a Minister both in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic.
I believe that Members of Parliament have a duty to scrutinise not just faulty street lights and cracked paving stones, but legislation. I believe that Ministers have a duty to explain to the House the legislation that they are presenting to it, and to justify that legislation. If they cannot do that, they deserve to be defeated.
The Minister has repeatedly said at the Dispatch Box that he has already explained; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said many hours ago, what we have heard is a series of protestations and assertions, but no evidence whatever.
Let me now deal directly with the new clauses.
Again, in the small hours of the morning, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has had to leave the Chamber, although I am sure that it is for good reasons—reached an agreement, incredibly, that his new clause No. 9 dealt with the other bit of the issue that is missing from clause 2. The bit that is missing relates to Members of the House of Commons and, indeed, to potential Members of the Parliament of the Irish Republic.
If it is wrong for a Member of the Parliament of the Irish Republic to be a Minister also in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and for a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to be a Minister also in the Parliament of the Irish Republic, I cannot for the life of me see the logic in saying that it is not wrong for a Minister of the Crown in the UK Parliament to be a Minister in either of the other places. The Bill as drafted—the Minister is aware of it—means that it will be in order for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, while sitting in the UK Parliament, also to be a Minister in the Parliament of the Irish Republic.

Mr. Hogg: Is there not a different way to put the same question: why should that be right? The Bill as drafted makes it possible for that situation to arise, so those who drafted it have to persuade the Committee that it is right that that consequence should be able to occur.

Mr. Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. He will probably be astonished to know that, in the small hours of the morning, we confirmed that, as the Bill stands, it is in order—I am not saying that it is necessarily likely—for the Speaker of the House of Commons, an independent body by virtue of his or her office—to be a partisan Minister in the Parliament of the Irish Republic. That is possible. Nothing in the Bill stops it. However, that is not what is before the Committee.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have been listening with care, trying to discount some of the tone and listen to the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Many bizarre things may in theory happen but are not in practice likely to happen, with the result that we do not legislate against them. Why does he think that the bizarre points that he is putting to us should be part of the legislation?

Mr. Gale: Forgive me. The Minister rises at the Dispatch Box and says that what I am suggesting is bizarre. I agree. It would be bizarre for the Speaker to be a Minister in another Parliament, but there is nothing to prevent it. However, that is not what I am seeking to discuss.
The Minister intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke.

Mr. Cash: Stone.

Mr. Gale: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. It is late.
In that intervention, the Minister virtually made the argument for us. He said that it was not beyond the bounds of possibility. He cited an hon. Member who had been a Member of both legislatures. Either we are legislating for reality or we are not. He said himself that it was not beyond the bounds of possibility. If it is not


beyond the bounds of possibility for an hon. Member to be a Member also of the Parliament of the Irish Republic, it is not, as things stand, beyond the bounds of possibility for the same Member to be a Minister in both legislatures.

Mr. O'Brien: We are talking about two different propositions. One involves the situation where a person may be a Member of one House and also a member of another legislature. That is feasible. The position of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is a potential case in point. I do not think that it has happened on all fours, but we can see that the potential is there. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) asks us to believe that a Prime Minister would go a step further and make a person in that position a Minister. That is a bizarre proposition. If the hon. Gentleman can show me that there is a realistic prospect of that, I might not think it so bizarre: I might believe that his argument has some validity. He must be careful not to suggest that the House should legislate against all sorts of theoretical possibilities which, in practice, will never occur.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Gale: I shall give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and then respond both to his point and to that of the Minister.

Mr. Hogg: The Committee is being asked to uphold that my hon. Friend's suggestion is far-fetched and bizarre, but the suggestion has already been dealt with in clause 1, which provides that Ministers in the Government of Ireland shall not hold office as certain types of Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Such a situation is being contemplated as a real possibility; hence the need for legislation on the point. It is no more bizarre to address the issue in relation to the United Kingdom's other Parliament and Assemblies than it is to address it in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Ministers are making provision to deal with the latter occurrence.

Mr. Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend is right, except that I think he meant to refer to the provisions of clause 2, not of clause 1. Otherwise, he is absolutely right.
In the early hours, in his absence, we referred—in no way disparagingly, as Mr. Martin would not have permitted it—to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is a Member of the European Parliament, of this House and of the Northern Ireland Assembly. There is nothing improper in his holding those positions. However, the point was made that only one of those three legislatures—this one—is a sovereign Parliament. The Northern Ireland Assembly is not sovereign, and the European Parliament is most certainly not sovereign. The Parliament of the Irish Republic is sovereign, as is the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. He might admit, "I got clause 2 wrong. There is no prospect of a Member being a Minister both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic"—although if he did, one might ask why

clause 2 was included in the Bill. Clause 2, which the Committee has passed, deals precisely with a situation in which a Member serves as a Minister in both legislatures.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in allowing interventions, and I do not want to abuse his generosity, but I thought I had dealt with that point. The situation in Northern Ireland is different because of the d'Hondt principle on selection of the Executive. The d'Hondt principle does not apply in the British Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. Therefore, the Prime Minister, First Minister or First Secretary in those Executives have a choice about who is appointed as a Minister, and, in practice, would not choose someone who was a Member of the Executive of another country.

Mr. Gale: What matters is not whether the principle belongs to Professor d'Hondt deceased, or to anyone else, but the principle itself. The Bill's principle maintains—entirely correctly, if we are to have the Bill at all—that it is wrong for a Member to be a Minister in both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Parliament of the Irish Republic. The Minister agrees with that—it is his Bill—and, to the extent that I agree with the Bill at all, I agree with that. All the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is saying in new clause 9, and all my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is saying in new clause 8, is that, if that is so, it is also wrong for a Member to be a Minister in this House and in the Parliament of the Irish Republic. Let us, therefore, state that clearly in the Bill.
The Minister has spoken many times in our debates, and he has said that he is prepared to consider the issue. However, he is not prepared to give any undertakings. If he is not prepared to do that, I hope that either my hon. Friend the Member for Stone or the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will press his new clause to the vote. Patently, if clause 2 is correct, one of the new clauses also must be right. We have to deal with that.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the past year, Ministers have created a problem by raising the issue of whether formulations and amendments arising from Bills may be thought to be purely theoretical?
Secondly, the history of British constitutional development over the past 600 years contains many examples of people saying that something would never happen because it was merely a theoretical possibility. An example of that is the prediction that Britain would not lose the veto. Is it not unwise to rely on the Minister's protestations that what appears theoretical could not happen eventually, or even soon?

Mr. Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I went to see the Minister in 1997 and were told that there would not be a problem with economic migrants. He was proved wrong about that, and I fear that he will be proved wrong again. The Minister pulls a face, but if he does not answer satisfactorily the points that have been raised, he must expect us to vote against the Bill.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Minister has said in his defence that our objections are theoretical, but


do not all the precedents show that laws made in haste tend to be bad laws? The Government have introduced the Bill in haste, and it is our duty to try to improve it, as the new clause proposes.

Mr. Gale: If we are not here to legislate, I do not know what we are here for.

Mr. Maginnis: The Minister claims that it is not possible to legislate for every eventuality, but the Government are promoting legislation in favour of creating an anomaly—that Ministers in this House theoretically could be also be Ministers in the Dail. Therein lies the difficulty with the Bill.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the argument is becoming circular and I am getting bored with the sound of my own voice.
In conclusion, if clause 2 is right, at least one of the new clauses must be right. The Minister has not convinced the Committee that if one is right, the other is not. If he cannot produce a convincing argument, he should produce an amendment encapsulating the single exclusion that we want. Failing that, he has to accept one of our proposals now or face a vote on one.
I agree that legislation for its own sake is bad. The Bill cannot be described as that, but it is very bad and we are genuinely trying to mitigate it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. How many times must I rise to catch your eye before I am called to speak?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I arrived in the Chair only a few moments ago, and was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was rising to catch my eye. Had I been so aware, I should have called him, in the correct order, as I always do.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful, Mr. Lord. I want to be brief. I have sought to intervene several times—sometimes I was allowed to, sometimes I was not. I recognise that I am an alien species in the Committee. According to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I am an alien because I was born and bred in Ireland. I have been called an alien and a foreigner. I have listened to the debate and I am appalled. The question of sovereignty arises, but the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) forgets, of course, that in 1984 his Government put through the House the Single European Act, which made this country subject to European law. That is a transfer of sovereignty.
The Irish Republic, where I was born—and whose passport I held even after I came to the House because I was not an English citizen, but that is perfectly permissible—is also a member of the European Union and subject to European sovereignty. We have commonality of sovereignty, but that is ignored by those who seek to insult and denigrate those of us who were born abroad. That is sad. It is also why I appeared a little annoyed earlier, for which I apologise, Mr. Lord.
I have sat here for a day and a bit being consistently insulted, as have 5 million people with the same heritage. We do not have to take it: our forefathers and relatives fought and died for this land in two world wars. Some of my family fought against this country in various rebellions and wars; that is a part of history. But I thought that we had grown up—I thought that the Good Friday agreement would mean that we could bury the past and not carry the prejudices and hatred forward. We should not be carrying into the future that which had created the tragedies of Northern Ireland. Yet what have I seen for a day and a half; what have I heard? Hon. Members have sought to carry the tragedies of Northern Ireland into the future.
I accept that I was rude to the Minister earlier, and I apologise unreservedly to him. He was right when he said that we should not play with theoretical issues that might not happen but should look at the realities of life. Why not? I know that one can be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the European Parliament and the House of Commons. Of course that happens and nobody criticises it. I think that three hon. Members currently combine those roles. When I first came to this place, many people were Members of both the European Parliament and the House. Now, many people are Members of the Scottish Parliament and of the Welsh Assembly. The Scottish Parliament is sovereign—at least, I think it is; I hope it is.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us have Irish ancestry in various degrees? Far from insulting anybody who comes from Ireland, the reverse is true—many of us have enormous affection for the Irish people and wish them well. However, there is a simple point that I should like to put to the hon. Gentleman in response to his question. Why does the Bill provide for members of the Irish legislature to become Members of this House and the Northern Ireland Assembly but not vice versa?

Mr. Bermingham: That is quite simple—we are dealing with the situation that we find today. Should the situation arise, I am sure that the necessary amendments could be passed. It is as simple as that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he has much sympathy and love for Ireland. Perhaps he might transfer that sympathy and love to certain of his right hon. and hon. Friends—including the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border—who are mentioned in early-day motion 315. That makes it clear that certain Conservative Members have no sympathy or love for the Irish; instead, they have an ingrained hatred, and it shows from time to time.

Mr. Hogg: May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the new clause before the Committee? I, too, have very strong Irish connections—my mother was born in County Galway—but we are not talking about that. Instead, we are asking whether it is right that a Minister of the Irish Government, with all the duties that such a Minister owes to Ireland and to the Government of Ireland, should be able to be a member of a Government of any part of this


country. The answer to that must surely be no, because of the conflicting arguments. It has nothing to do with antipathy between the countries.

Mr. Bermingham: That intervention takes us back to a very simple point: how many legislatures we belong to is a matter for us. I should have thought that in a multicultural, multipolitical Europe, being a member of more than one legislature, if we can find the time to do it—[Interruption.] I gave way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and I shall answer his question step by step, if I may, because he, like me, is a logical man. If one wants to be a member of many legislatures and one's constituency will accept that, so be it. However, once one becomes a member of a Government—let us get real, in a real world—it matters not in which legislature one is a member of a Government, one acquires and retains certain responsibilities to that Government. There is no way in which a person can be a member of two Governments at the same time. That is wholly illogical. It will not, does not, and cannot happen.

Mr. Hogg: In that case, why cannot that provision be included in the Bill?

Mr. Bermingham: I would have thought that common sense would tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he read the Bill, that that could not happen in any event. Do we need to legislate on every word when—bearing in mind Pepper v. Hart, with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is fully familiar—anyone reading the debates on the Bill would realise that it was never the intention of Parliament that anyone should be a Minister in two Governments? That is obvious.
I return to my primary point—what on earth have we been doing for the past couple of hours? We have been going excitedly around in circles dealing with a theoretical situation that will never arise, simply because certain Opposition Members cannot get it through their thick heads that the time has come to settle the Irish question once and for all. This is yet another step on the road to the settlement of issues that have dogged and bedevilled our societies for the past 100 years.
I have tried to be as brief as possible. I asked the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to be brief; he took 10 minutes. I shall take six or seven minutes. Is it not time to move on to what we are really in this place to do? That is to bring peace to Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Thank you for allowing me to speak for a second time, Mr. Lord. Earlier, I thought that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) had risen only to make a point of order. When you called me to speak, Mr. Lord, I, too, could have raised a point of order.
I regret that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have respect because we have worked in varying degrees of friendship, has revealed an underlying current that keeps coming up. If I wanted to follow his example—although I do not—I could make the same complaint because I

happen to be from Northern Ireland, which was historically the old Ulidia and I am proud to be an Ulsterman. In this place, I am regularly called an Irishman, even though I have British citizenship, which I believe includes Scotland, Wales, Ireland historically, and certainly that north-east part that we call Ulster.
In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I must make it abundantly plain that even Europe has its regulations. Unless I have been misled, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) would have been happy to be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but European legislation would not allow one to be a Minister even in a subsidiary Parliament—never mind in the main Government—and serve in the European Parliament.
My party has discouraged dual membership. If a person stands for a position in the Assembly or in Parliament, at the next election we would expect him to choose the body for which he plans to stand. We believe that such jobs are full-time, although I realise that people have different abilities and capacities for work. However, the Ulster Unionist party has maintained that principle for some time.
In relation to the comments about Whips, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) seemed to regret that I might have had to call him into line. I thought that I had done so graciously and courteously—

Mr. William Ross: Always.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We can sometimes be misunderstood. The purpose of any Whip is to try to ensure that the party's business, or the Government's business, is carried through, by fair means and sometimes foul—although I confess to my party that I have never held a little black book, never mind a red book.

Mr. Hogg: I wanted to clarify one point in new clause 2, with regard to the party Whip. I notice that "a party Whip" is referred to in the second line of the new clause. That applies to the Whip of any party, including opposition parties, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman is restricting new clause 2 to a Whip of the Government party. Perhaps he would clarify that point.

Rev. Martin Smyth: It would, on the face of it, be a Whip of a Government party, but one does recognise that a Whip, even of an opposition party, has particular responsibilities to ensure that his party's position carries through. The new clause could be read either way but, in light of the phrasing, I believe that it refers to a Government party.
I return to the d'Hondt aspect. I happen to be one of those who was never terribly happy that an Executive could be formed by d'Hondt. I understand that it is an excellent way to deal with Committees where one wants to have a cross-section of opinion and balanced views, but it is important that we bear in mind that an Executive has a task to do: to give leadership and to see business through. Sooner or later, we shall have difficulties at that level within Northern Ireland or any other Assembly whose Executive is formed on a d'Hondt principle, whereby, if the Minister in the Executive is arguing for a party position, and stands by it, and faces a vote of no


confidence in that Assembly or Parliament, he has to resign, and the party whose policy the Minister was seeking to follow through has the right to fill that vacant position.
Therefore, the Minister may be mistaken when he says that it would or could never happen. As the hon. Member for St. Helens, South was speaking, I reflected that we are living in another world—a changing world, for good or ill. We now have an Irish in Britain Movement, and it is possible that sometimes its members may be dissatisfied with either of the main parties in this place and may seek to advance their own position. They may even seek to get a well-known personality from Ireland to represent them and to be elected to the House.
Speaking of theory, it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility, as we are all working together within Europe, for a Government of a particular hue in the United Kingdom to share with a Government in the Republic of Ireland—or, for that matter, any other Government—a Minister who may be elected by a constituency in both countries because he is capable of work and the people want him. It is possible that such a person may be asked to take part in another Government. Having said that, I still believe that it should be in the Bill that it should not be done. If Europe can do it, which is an Assembly view—

Mr. Bermingham: I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but would he consider this point? A company, owned and managed by English people, invests in Northern Ireland. The managing director becomes a resident and seeks to stand for the Assembly because he wants to represent the interests of his work force and so on. That is perfectly acceptable. The same happens in southern Ireland, and it is perfectly acceptable. What is wrong with that? Is that not us all becoming part of the family of Europe, and should that be criticised in any way? I hark back to the hon. Gentleman's comment about the Irish in England.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Anyone has a right to put himself forward and to be selected. I remember during the campaign of the late Enoch Powell in South Down, a member of the SDLP, Patrick O'Hanlon, said that South Down would never let in foreigners. I saw him the next day and asked him, "What was that nonsense about, Paddy? What about that Spanish-American—De Valera?" He said, "Martin, I am glad that no one else recognised that one."
When we talk about using language and so on, we have to face reality. Sometimes there is a degree of pejorativism, but usually people are described as being part of our nation or of another nation. Those who espouse Ireland as a nation once again would never think that they were part of the English connection, and they find it difficult to recognise that British means more than English. It was an Episcopalian dean of St. Patrick's in Dublin who said, in a moment of anger,
Burn everything English except English coal.
I happen to have a greater love for the coal miners of England than he had.
The new clause would tighten up the legislation. The one thing that has come through the debate, and throughout the previous two years, has been a tendency to have shoddy parliamentary draftsmanship. That has

gone on for far too long, with far too many amendments tabled on Report or coming from the other place. It is time that we got legislation clear in this House before we send it elsewhere.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is absolutely right when he talks about the duty of this Committee to ensure that legislation is in as good a state as we can get it. That is a Committee's duty. Our purpose is to send the Bill to another place in as good a form as we can contrive.
The Committee must address whether it is right in principle that a Minister of the Republic of Ireland should be capable of being a Minister in any of the Parliaments or Assemblies of the United Kingdom. To that question, one has no difficulty in giving the answer. It has to be no, it is not right in principle. The arguments have been well articulated by my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), and I need not expand upon them.
There is a conflict of loyalty and duty that goes to the root of the argument and is conclusive. If one is fair to the Government—I seldom am, as they do not deserve it—one will find that they have accepted what I say, as clause 2 of the Bill makes a prohibition in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government say that that is more likely to happen in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the UK. If the Government are honest, they will accept that that is the only argument that they have advanced.
The Government do not say that there are drafting difficulties. There is one slight difficulty with new clause 2 with regard to the identity of the party Whip, but that is a minor problem. Subject to that, new clause 2 is in a proper form. We are being asked to say that new clause 2 should be rejected not because it is wrong in form or principle, but because it addresses a situation that will never arise. That is the only argument being put to the Committee, and it is manifestly a bad argument.
It may be true that this situation is more likely to arise in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. We are told that it is unlikely to arise—I accept that—but the point is that it can arise both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the UK. If the Bill is likely to serve as a precedent, and if there is pressure from France, Germany, Italy, Spain or wherever to enable the members of the Governments of those countries to sit in the Parliaments or Governments of this country, we have a right to make sure that bad precedents are not established.
4.45 pm
There is one way that Governments sometimes address the problem of what to do about eventualities that are unlikely to occur but are thoroughly undesirable: historically, Governments send a Minister to the Dispatch Box to undertake not to do this or that. However, that does not serve our purpose because, as the Minister said so fairly on Second Reading, on which I helped to divide the House, he cannot provide an undertaking that will bind future Governments. I have referred to precedents because I am concerned about future Governments.
The principle is with those of us who support the new clauses. The Minister does not argue to the contrary; he cannot do so because of clause 2. He merely urges us not to press the proposal, because our fears are unlikely to


arise. We all know that that is a thoroughly bad argument. I very much hope that the Committee divides on the issue. I shall certainly support new clause 2 if we do.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I do not want to be discourteous to the Committee, but I have already covered most of the arguments. I know that some hon. Members will not agree with that, but that is as may be. How I decide to make my case is a matter for me.
Clause 2 provides a special provision for Northern Ireland because of the d'Hondt principle. That is legitimate. However, there are already constitutional safeguards because of the political circumstances under which the Prime Minister or the First Minister of one of the Assemblies or the Scottish Parliament would appoint Members to an Executive. That would cover the eventualities that have been raised.

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: No, because the hon. Gentleman will return to the arguments that we have rehearsed before.
The Government believe that such circumstances are covered. I know that hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), do not accept that, but we shall just have to agree to differ. I set out my arguments at greater length earlier in our proceedings and I stand by them.
I have given some comfort to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—although perhaps not as much as he would like—and to the Liberal Democrats, and said that I shall consider the issues. I have made it clear that I cannot give undertakings. I am conscious of the Bill's time frame. However, if we conclude that issues have arisen, the opportunity to deal with them may present itself at a later stage.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I appreciate the way that the Minister has dealt with this group of amendments. It has been in refreshing contrast to the way in which others have been dealt with in our long proceedings. He has not been able to give an undertaking, but he has been honest about that, and we accept that. I had hoped that he would have said that he would meet the parties involved with a view to tabling amendments in another place if they still felt unhappy. Had he done that, I would have advised my hon. Friends that we need not press the new clause to a Division. If the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) wishes to divide the House, we shall support him.

Mr. Cash: I am gravely disappointed by the Minister's curmudgeonly attitude. He is always courteous, but he has not always attempted to answer our questions. He and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland remind me of people who have been trussed and bound by commitments that were made in advance of the Bill by other Ministers. They are so deeply committed that they dare not and cannot move. They are prepared to sit in a state of paralysis, parroting the view that the proposition is merely theoretical.
Let me give an example from the 17th century of a possibility that people regarded as merely theoretical. At that time, the idea that we would end up with a Hanoverian monarch would have been thought quite extraordinary—it was a possibility on which people had only theorised. However, in practice, it happened. Our history provides us with thousands of cases of people who, on a question of principle—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs. It is extraordinary that he is incapable of taking the matter seriously.
Given that Opposition Members have advanced some extremely cogent arguments, the responsibility and onus lie on the Government to respond by tabling amendments to the Bill. That is what amendments are all about. How many amendments that have been passed could have been dismissed on the grounds that they dealt with theoretical propositions?
When we pass legislation, we make law. When contingencies have been properly argued and it has been demonstrated that failure to address them will result in law that is defective, the Minister, by refusing to deal with those matters, is in effect presenting the House with a defective Bill that will be defective in law.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cash: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. He knows perfectly well that such issues arise again and again in legislation and in constitutional practice and history. Because the Bill is a constitutional measure, he should accept the constitutional consequences arising from it and deal with the issues that have been raised.
Two of the new clauses cover similar ground. I, for my part, have no special need to press new clause 8 to a Division: as far as I am concerned, new clause 2, which takes precedence on the amendment paper, is capable of addressing the principle just as well. Therefore, although I am perfectly happy not to vote on the new clause that I tabled, I shall certainly vote in support of new clause 2.

Mr. William Ross: This has been an interesting debate. I have listened to a fair bit of it, just as I have listened to a fair bit of all the debates that have occurred in the past 24 hours.
At first, the Minister encouraged me. It is always fatal to be given encourage by a Minister in the early stages of a debate, because he will always say in the end that he cannot help. That said, he recognised the conflict of interest, even though he appears to think the risk is so small that it is not worth bothering about.
The Minister fails to understand the consequences of STV elections in Northern Ireland, wherein lies the danger that an individual such as I described can and, I believe, will eventually be elected, because he will require only one seventh of the votes cast to be elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. D'Hondt is not a personal selection by the voter, but a party selection. We in Northern Ireland deal not with normal political parties, but with a criminal terrorist conspiracy. That is what distances the circumstances there from those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is the reason we have tabled amendments and asked questions over the past day or two.
I am sorry that the Government have refused to listen to the careful and detailed case presented by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), my hon. Friend the


Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and others. In the light of that refusal, I regret that I am unable to ask the Committee's leave to withdraw new clause 2 and instead ask that it be put to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second Time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 309.

Division No. 49]
[4.54 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Greenway, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hague, Rt Hon William


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hammond, Philip


Baldry, Tony
Hawkins, Nick


Ballard, Jackie
Hayes, John


Beggs, Roy
Heald, Oliver


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Horam, John


Blunt, Crispin
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Body, Sir Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Boswell, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brady, Graham



Brake, Tom
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Brazier, Julian
Keetch, Paul


Breed, Colin
Key, Robert


Browning, Mrs Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burnett, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Burns, Simon
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Burstow, Paul
Lansley, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Letwin, Oliver


Cable, Dr Vincent
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lidington, David



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Llwyd, Elfyn


Chope, Christopher
Loughton, Tim


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Luff, Peter


Cotter, Brian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cran, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Curry, Rt Hon David
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Madel, Sir David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maginnis, Ken


Duncan, Alan
Major, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maples, John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mates, Michael


Evans, Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Faber, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fabricant, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Fallon, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Fearn, Ronnie
Moore, Michael


Flight, Howard
Moss, Malcolm


Forsythe, Clifford
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Norman, Archie


Foster, Don (Bath)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Page, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gill, Christopher
Prior, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Randall, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gray, James
Rendel, David


Green, Damian
Robathan, Andrew





Robertson, Laurence
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Thompson, William


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Ruffley, David
Trend, Michael


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tyler, Paul


St Aubyn, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Sanders, Adrian
Viggers, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walter, Robert


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Waterson, Nigel


Shepherd, Richard
Webb, Steve


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael
Willetts, David


Spring, Richard
Willis, Phil


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Streeter, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Stunell, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Casale, Roger


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cawsey, Ian


Ainger, Nick
Chaytor, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allen, Graham



Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Austin, John
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Battle, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Coleman, Iain


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Colman, Tony


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Jean


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Best, Harold
Cranston, Ross


Betts, Clive
Crausby, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blizzard, Bob
Cummings, John


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Borrow, David
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradshaw, Ben
Darvill, Keith


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Browne, Desmond
Dawson, Hilton


Burden, Richard
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burgon, Colin
Denham, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dismore, Andrew


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Doran, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dowd, Jim


Canavan, Dennis
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Cann, Jamie
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caplin, Ivor
Edwards, Huw






Efford, Clive
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lock, David


Ennis, Jeff
Love, Andrew


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Fisher, Mark
McCabe, Steve


Fitzsimons, Loma
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Follett, Barbara



Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonnell, John


Galloway, George
McFall, John


Gapes, Mike
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gardiner, Barry
McIsaac, Shona


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNulty, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
MacShane, Denis


Godsiff, Roger
Mactaggart, Fiona


Goggins, Paul
McWalter, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grocott, Bruce
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hain, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Martlew, Eric


Hanson, David
Maxton, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Meale, Alan


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Healey, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Miller, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
Mitchell, Austin


Heppell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mountford, Kali


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mudie, George


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jamieson, David
Olner, Bill


Jenkins, Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pickthall, Colin


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pike, Peter L


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Plaskitt, James


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pond, Chris


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kidney, David
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Laxton, Bob
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lepper, David
Rammell, Bill


Leslie, Christopher
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Levitt, Tom
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rogers, Allan


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Linton, Martin
Rooney, Terry

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 4

SALARIES

"Any person who is elected as a member of both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the legislature of Ireland shall be paid 50 per cent. of the salary of a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly".—[Mr. William Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5— Office costs allowance—
Any person who is elected as a member of both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the legislature of Ireland shall receive no more than 50 per cent. of the office costs allowance payable to a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly".

Mr. Ross: Anyone who has read the new clauses will know exactly what they entail. I do not propose to detain the Committee for long, unless others want to take part in the debate. New clause 4 relates to the salary paid to a person elected a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the legislature of Ireland. Such a person would be paid 50 per cent. of the salary of a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that he would be paid the same from the Dail, although I have no control over that.
Some might think new clause 4 to be rather harsh, but it is generous. I understand that those who are Members of the House and of the European Parliament receive a full salary from one place, but only a third of their salary from the other. In effect, they are no better off, but the real problem lies with new clause 5, which would cut the office costs allowance paid to a Member by 50 per cent. Members would receive half the full amount of salary and office costs allowance that they could claim. The trouble is that those who have a representative role in Europe can claim 100 per cent. of their allowances from the House and 100 per cent. of the office costs allowance from Europe. That is unreasonable, but it seems even less reasonable when we consider the situation in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
If a workman worked only two and a half days a week instead of five, one would not pay him for five days' work. This new clause is most reasonable, so I hope that the Minister will recognise the force of my argument and accept it. It is completely in line with the policy pursued by successive Governments. I hope that the Minister will apply this proposal or something close to it.

Mr. George Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the two new clauses would abate by 50 per cent. the salaries and allowances of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who are also Members of the Irish legislature. They would apply the abatement to Members of the Dail and the Seanad.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has examined section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but it requires that an Assembly Member's salary be abated if he is also a Member of the House of Commons. No such abatement is applied in respect of Members of the Irish Seanad, who may already sit as Members of the Assembly.
Since devolution on 2 December 1999, the Assembly has had the power under section 47 of the 1998 Act to determine the salaries and allowances of its Members. It is already within the Assembly's powers under those provisions to abate salaries and allowances in the manner proposed in the new clause if it so chooses. Given that the Assembly already has that power, the Government see no need to make special provision in the Bill.
I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in these matters. He will be aware that the Assembly has already chosen to use those powers. That being the case, the new clause is unnecessary, although it is important to express the principle. The Assembly has those powers, and that is the right place for them to be exercised.

Mr. Ross: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Minister. I think that the place in which to put down the marker is this House. We are dealing with a subordinate legislature, and there is no guarantee that it will apply the principle that I have enunciated and that applies in Europe. I am setting out a general principle that should apply right across the board, which is that Members can draw a salary only for the amount of work they do, and they can draw only the secretarial allowances that apply to that work.
In all truth, it was the thought of some hon. Members not carrying out all their duties but drawing their salaries and lifting £100,000 or thereabouts in allowances that sparked off this amendment in my mind. The principle

embodied in the new clause is sound. If the Minister is not prepared to be more reasonable than he has been hitherto, I shall press the new clause to a vote.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister has acknowledged the validity of the proposition tabled by my hon. Friend. The only difference between us is whether it should be enshrined in the Bill. We can see no good reason why it should not be, so we would advise right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 337.

Division No. 49]
[4.54 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Greenway, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hague, Rt Hon William


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hammond, Philip


Baldry, Tony
Hawkins, Nick


Ballard, Jackie
Hayes, John


Beggs, Roy
Heald, Oliver


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Horam, John


Blunt, Crispin
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Body, Sir Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Boswell, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brady, Graham



Brake, Tom
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Brazier, Julian
Keetch, Paul


Breed, Colin
Key, Robert


Browning, Mrs Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burnett, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Burns, Simon
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Burstow, Paul
Lansley, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Letwin, Oliver


Cable, Dr Vincent
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lidington, David



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Llwyd, Elfyn


Chope, Christopher
Loughton, Tim


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Luff, Peter


Cotter, Brian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cran, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Curry, Rt Hon David
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Madel, Sir David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maginnis, Ken


Duncan, Alan
Major, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maples, John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mates, Michael


Evans, Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Faber, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fabricant, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Fallon, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Fearn, Ronnie
Moore, Michael


Flight, Howard
Moss, Malcolm


Forsythe, Clifford
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Norman, Archie


Foster, Don (Bath)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Page, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gill, Christopher
Prior, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Randall, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gray, James
Rendel, David


Green, Damian
Robathan, Andrew





Robertson, Laurence
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Thompson, William


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Ruffley, David
Trend, Michael


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tyler, Paul


St Aubyn, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Sanders, Adrian
Viggers, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walter, Robert


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Waterson, Nigel


Shepherd, Richard
Webb, Steve


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael
Willetts, David


Spring, Richard
Willis, Phil


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Streeter, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Stunell, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Casale, Roger


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cawsey, Ian


Ainger, Nick
Chaytor, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allen, Graham



Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Austin, John
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Battle, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Coleman, Iain


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Colman, Tony


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Jean


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Best, Harold
Cranston, Ross


Betts, Clive
Crausby, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blizzard, Bob
Cummings, John


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Borrow, David
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradshaw, Ben
Darvill, Keith


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Browne, Desmond
Dawson, Hilton


Burden, Richard
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burgon, Colin
Denham, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dismore, Andrew


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Doran, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dowd, Jim


Canavan, Dennis
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Cann, Jamie
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caplin, Ivor
Edwards, Huw






Efford, Clive
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lock, David


Ennis, Jeff
Love, Andrew


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Fisher, Mark
McCabe, Steve


Fitzsimons, Loma
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Follett, Barbara



Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonnell, John


Galloway, George
McFall, John


Gapes, Mike
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gardiner, Barry
McIsaac, Shona


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNulty, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
MacShane, Denis


Godsiff, Roger
Mactaggart, Fiona


Goggins, Paul
McWalter, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grocott, Bruce
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hain, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Martlew, Eric


Hanson, David
Maxton, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Meale, Alan


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Healey, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Miller, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
Mitchell, Austin


Heppell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mountford, Kali


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mudie, George


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jamieson, David
Olner, Bill


Jenkins, Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pickthall, Colin


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pike, Peter L


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Plaskitt, James


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pond, Chris


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kidney, David
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Laxton, Bob
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lepper, David
Rammell, Bill


Leslie, Christopher
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Levitt, Tom
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rogers, Allan


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Linton, Martin
Rooney, Terry




Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Roy, Frank
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Todd, Mark


Ryan, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


Salter, Martin
Trickett, Jon


Sarwar, Mohammad
Truswell, Paul


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Tynan, Bill


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Ward, Ms Claire


Singh, Marsha
Wareing, Robert N


Skinner, Dennis
Watts, David


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
White, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, LJew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wilson, Brian


Spellar, John
Winnick, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wood, Mike


Steinberg, Gerry
Woolas, Phil


Stevenson, George
Worthington, Tony


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wray, James


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stuart, Ms Gisela



Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mr. Greg Pope and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Division No. 51]
[7.19 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Ainger, Nick
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe


Alexander, Douglas
Atkins, Charlotte


Allen, Graham
Austin, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Ballard, Jackie






Banks, Tony
Donohoe, Brian H


Barnes, Harry
Doran, Frank


Battle, John
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Drew, David


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Edwards, Huw


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Efford, Clive


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Ennis, Jeff


Bennett, Andrew F
Fearn, Ronnie


Benton, Joe
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Berry, Roger
Follett, Barbara


Best, Harold
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Betts, Clive
Foster, Don (Bath)


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blizzard, Bob
Foulkes, George


Borrow, David
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gapes, Mike


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gardiner, Barry


Bradshaw, Ben
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Breed, Colin
Gerrard, Neil


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Godsiff, Roger


Browne, Desmond
Goggins, Paul


Burden, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burgon, Colin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Burstow, Paul
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grogan, John


Canavan, Dennis
Gunnell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hain, Peter


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Casale, Roger
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cawsey, Ian
Hanson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Chaytor, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clapham, Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)



Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clwyd, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Coaker, Vernon
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Colman, Tony
Hoyle, Lindsay


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hurst, Alan


Corston, Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cotter, Brian
Illsley, Eric


Cranston, Ross
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Crausby, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jamieson, David


Cummings, John
Jenkins, Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire



Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keeble, Ms Sally


Denham, John
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dismore, Andrew
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dobbin, Jim
Kemp, Fraser





Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kidney, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Laxton, Bob
Quinn, Lawrie


Lepper, David
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Leslie, Christopher
Rammell, Bill


Levitt, Tom
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rendel, David


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roy, Frank


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruddock, Joan


Lock, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Love, Andrew
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Salter, Martin



Sanders, Adrian


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sarwar, Mohammad


Macdonald, Calum
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonnell, John
Sawford, Phil


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Shaw, Jonathan


McIsaac, Shona
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Shipley, Ms Debra


McNulty, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


MacShane, Denis
Singh, Marsha


Mactaggart, Fiona
Skinner, Dennis


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Snape, Peter


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spellar, John


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Maxton, John
Stevenson, George


Meale, Alan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Merron, Gillian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Miller, Andrew
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mitchell, Austin
Stunell, Andrew


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moore, Michael
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy


Mountford, Kali
Todd, Mark


Mudie, George
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Norris, Dan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Olner, Bill
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tyler, Paul


Palmer, Dr Nick
Tynan, Bill


Pearson, Ian
Ward, Ms Claire


Pendry, Tom
Wareing, Robert N


Pickthall, Colin
Watts, David


Plaskitt, James
Webb, Steve


Pollard, Kerry
Welsh, Andrew


Pond, Chris
White, Brian


Pope, Greg
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wicks, Malcolm






Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wray, James


Willis, Phil
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wilson, Brian
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Mike Hall and


Wood, Mike
Mr. Don Touhig.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Faber, David


Beggs, Roy
Fabricant, Michael


Bercow, John
Fallon, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Flight, Howard


Blunt, Crispin
Forsythe, Clifford


Body, Sir Richard
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fox, Dr Liam


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fraser, Christopher


Brady, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gibb, Nick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gray, James


Butterfill, John
Green, Damian


Cash, William
Greenway, John


Chope, Christopher
Grieve, Dominic


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hammond, Philip


Collins, Tim
Hawkins, Nick


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hayes, John


Cran, James
Heald, Oliver


Curry, Rt Hon David
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Horam, John


Day, Stephen
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Jenkin, Bernard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Key, Robert





King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Btoxbourne)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Lansley, Andrew
Ruffley, David


Leigh, Edward
St Aubyn, Nick


Letwin, Oliver
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Loughton, Tim
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Swayne, Desmond


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Syms, Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Maginnis, Ken
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Maples, John
Thompson, William


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tredinnick, David


Mawhinnev Rt Hon Sir Brian
Trend, Michael



Tyrie, Andrew


May, Mrs Theresa
Viggers, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Walter, Robert


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Norman, Archie
Wells, Bowen


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Page, Richard
Willetts, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paterson, Owen
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Pickles, Eric
Yeo, Tim


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Randall, John



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Robertson. Laurence
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Disqualifications Bill

Not amended in the Committee, considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Having had a fairly friendly afternoon of it, I do not want to be too controversial now. Let me just say that I do not think that the last 24 hours have been very helpful to the situation in Northern Ireland, or shown the House of Commons at its best.
The Conservative Front Bench did not oppose Second Reading. It seemed to me that it lost control of a number of its dissident Back Benchers, who then created an entirely new situation which took the Front Bench down the garden path. At various stages of the debate, I was not entirely clear about how Conservative Front Benchers were approaching the matter. At one point, they were saying that this was not a constitutional outrage; on other occasions, it seemed almost as though other Conservative spokespersons were suggesting that it was.

Mr. MacKay: What unites Conservative Members—and, I believe, Liberal Democrats and Unionists—is our belief that it is an outrage to arrange a Second Reading debate on the Monday and then, after the Minister has said—in response to me—that the Bill constitutes neither emergency nor urgent legislation, to bulldoze the measure through, allowing a Committee stage and a Report stage with no time for reflection. That, I think, unites all the Opposition parties, and I believe that it also unites certain Labour Members who are disgusted with the way in which the Government bulldoze through legislation while ignoring the House of Commons.

Mr. O'Brien: Given the unreasonableness of his intervention, I am sorry that I felt disposed to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. This is not emergency legislation; it is a Bill that was given broad support on Second Reading, by a vote of 300 to 17. The Conservative Front-Bench team did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. It is a short Bill of three clauses and has been available since just before Christmas. Many amendments to it were tabled.
When the timing of the Bill was put before the usual channels, there was no protest from the Conservative Front-Bench team. It could have protested if it felt that it was a significant matter, but the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks on Northern Ireland for the Conservative Front-Bench team, said that he did not regard it as a major constitutional Bill. He has been clear in that view. Therefore, it seemed that, at that stage, Conservative Front Benchers did not object to the way in which the House was proceeding.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: No. I am dealing with a point that was raised by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). I hope to give way later to hon. Members, but I do not want to detain the House too long; in many ways, it has already been detained too long.
The Bill became a matter of principle at the late stages yesterday. It was only when a number of Conservative Back Benchers decided to deal with it in a certain way that others got dragged along.
The Bill is essentially a small step in building a closer relationship between the Irish Republic and the UK as a whole. Whereas, under present law, Northern Ireland is treated uniquely—its citizens can have dual membership of the Irish Senate and the Northern Ireland Assembly—under the Bill, it will be treated broadly as the rest of the UK is in its relationship with the Irish Republic. If we do not pass the Bill, the current law will remain and Northern Ireland will continue to be the only part of the UK with that special link.
It is surprising, then, that an essentially fairly modest little Bill has produced so much controversy. It says more about the sensitivities of the situation in Northern Ireland than the Bill itself. It is not surprising that there are sensitivities in Northern Ireland, given the history of the past 30 years, but we must be aware that seeing threats in changes that are not really threatening is not helpful.
I understand that lives have been blighted, murders committed, atrocities have taken place and rightful anger engendered. I understand the concern that each move must be carefully reciprocated. All those things make the whole Northern Irish process a painful journey away from violence and, I hope, towards a better future. Sometimes, the price for some can seem high. The so-called concessions sometimes appear great to some Members, until we consider that, if we do not continue the process, we will face the prospect of more lives blighted and more widows created. I think that the whole House would share that view.
It is understandable that, sometimes, both sides say, "So far, but no further," and that there are suspicions. Sometimes, people in England may not understand some of those feelings, but if they remember the history and the families who have been directly affected, perhaps they will.
We are engaged in a process of reconciling the two communities and two heritages in Northern Ireland within a wider institutional structure. Essentially, the Bill is a small step in ending the anomaly with regard to Northern Ireland and in recognising the need for closer links between the UK as a whole and the Irish Republic. It is not about unification, or even a step towards it. It is about two countries with many shared concerns working out, within the context of the British Isles and the European Union, a closer working relationship on a number of issues.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I promised to give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I shall then give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Then I shall move on.

Mr. Hogg: It is kind of the Minister to give way to me.
I take the Minister back to the points that he was making about the nature of the Bill and opposition developing late last night. Perhaps he would remember that, in business questions last week, I said to the Leader of the House that what she was doing was wrong. The Bill raises questions of considerable constitutional importance and it was offensive in principle for the Committee stage to follow Second Reading so quickly. The hon. Gentleman will see that I said that to the Leader of the House last Thursday. It is wrong to suggest that that point was not anticipated by Conservative Members.

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was one of those who took a somewhat different view from that of Conservative Front Benchers on the importance of the constitutional issues raised by the Bill. My point was about Conservative Front Benchers. Although I entirely accept the point that he makes on his own views, which are shared by one or two other Opposition Members, that was not the view adopted by Conservative Front Benchers.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is right to say that Liberal Democrat Members agree that the Bill will iron out an anomaly in relations between the United Kingdom and Ireland. However, will he tell us who—we have not yet been told—last year, in 1999, proposed that the anomaly should be ironed out, and when—in which month—the matter was first put on the agenda? Did the initiative come from the United Kingdom Government, from Northern Ireland or from the Irish Government?

Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I should explain the broader context to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot tell him the month that the issue was raised or even who raised it, as I did not see the initial representations on the matter. However, if I write to him on it, perhaps he will be better informed of the context. I am not able now to give him the precise information that he requests.
The Bill is not a huge constitutional concession, but a minor development in line with the forging of the special relationship between us and the Republic—our European partner, which is also a part of these islands.
No new principle is involved in the Bill. Dual membership is already possible between the Senate and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Is it in order for the Minister continuously to say that the Bill raises no major constitutional issues, although it has been determined by the House—on the advice of the authorities of the House, and at the insistence of the Speaker—that it is a constitutional Bill and debate on it must be held on the Floor of the House? How can the Minister say that the Bill is minor and non-constitutional legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order, but a matter for debate.

Mr. O'Brien: The Bill is not a huge constitutional concession. That point was made by Opposition Front Benchers, who also took the view that the Bill does not entail major constitutional innovation. At least to some extent, Opposition Front Benchers and I share that view—which, unfortunately, is different from that held by the hon. Gentleman. Then again, it is not for him to have


different views from those of Conservative Front Benchers. However, many other Conservative Members seem to hold different views from those of their spokesmen.
Dual membership is possible also between Common-wealth legislatures and our own. There are those who say that there should be no dual membership between sovereign states, but it has existed under our constitution for decades. Those who protest about it now did nothing about it when they were in government.
The Republic of Ireland has unique geographic, historical, economic, family and cultural ties with Britain. It is a special relationship, closer in many ways than our relationship with any other country outside the Commonwealth. Under our constitution, Irish nationals other than TDs have long been in the same position as Commonwealth citizens and have been able to stand for and vote in elections to the House of Commons.
In the previous century, there were constitutional issues to resolve, but the Good Friday agreement, and the British-Irish agreement, which came into effect on 2 December 1999, and our membership of the European Union make it clear that there is more that draws us closer than needs divide us.
The Bill is a small move, and it is now timely to take that step. As part of a bigger picture, it reduces anomalies and clarifies relationships. It is a small step that will give perhaps a little help—I claim no more for it—in the broader context of the peace process. The British-Irish agreement enabled the change to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution and changes to British constitutional legislation.
With the new agreement between the Governments on some of the constitutional issues, it is more appropriate that treatment of the Irish Parliament should be on the same basis as the most favourable treatment accorded to some Commonwealth legislatures.
Whether constituents want their MP to sit in two Parliaments and represent the views of two different constituencies is an issue on which many hon. Members have views. Some disapprove in principle; we believe that it is a matter for the electorate in each case to decide. We do not propose to bar Commonwealth legislators from standing for this House. We were also reluctant to leave section 36 of the 1998 Act unamended, and now we have decided to extend it to the UK as a whole.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me. Earlier in his speech he made clear the importance that he attaches to the taking of reciprocal steps. How can he then justify the stone wall of opposition erected by the Government against amendments that would have achieved exactly the reciprocity of which he spoke? There is an inconsistency between his behaviour and his remarks over the past 24 hours.

Mr. O'Brien: I cannot recall whether the hon. Gentleman participated in the debate on reciprocity, although I know that he was in the Chamber at other times last night. However, it was pointed out that, when it came

to reciprocity, there was a bar against Members of the Irish legislature belonging to this legislature. I shall not go into the whole issue of citizenship: rehearsing that argument would not be useful.
The 1998 Act recognises the special circumstances in Northern Ireland. The Government remain committed to working through the political process there, and to full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. That represents the best and only way for us to put the past behind us, to bring conflict to an end and to establish real partnership. We want local politicians in Northern Ireland to be in charge of their destiny.
Our clear message must be that politics and violence do not go together. Devolution and decommissioning go hand in hand. The Government will not fail to act in the event of default on either decommissioning or devolution.
The Bill is part of the broader political process, Government to Government, but it is not part of the Good Friday agreement. We should not seek to import into that sensitive and balanced agreement clauses that it did not contain before. If we did that, we would be treading into a dangerous political minefield. It is better to recognise that decommissioning belongs in the context of the Good Friday agreement. It is an integral part of that agreement, and is about the collateral strengthening of the special relationship.
The Bill is not about unification, decommissioning or great constitutional innovation. It is not a huge or major constitutional Bill, as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman agreed. It is about building a closer special relationship between London and Dublin, in the light of shared interests. It is about ending the anomaly that means that Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the UK on the issue of dual membership.
Most importantly, it is a small step on the longer journey towards creating the institutional structures that in the long term will help to create peace. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister made many remarks with which the Opposition are in sympathy, as we are totally committed to the peace process. It is very important that he registers that. If I may say so, his opening remarks were nothing short of disgraceful. He said—implied, certainly—that the peace process had in some way been jeopardised by what had gone on in the House over the past 24 hours. The Leader of the House, who was muttering from a sedentary position, said something similar, which has been reported in the news media.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I most certainly did not say that this situation had endangered the peace process. I said that it was unhelpful in the wider political process. That is different. The hon. Gentleman must not play with fire here—the situation in Northern Ireland is much too serious for party politics.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Member who has been playing party politics is hardly the one currently speaking at the Dispatch Box. The comments of the Minister and of the Leader of the House in her broadcast have cast aspersions on the wholehearted support that the


Conservative party has given, is giving, and wishes to continue to give the peace process. It is important to have that on the record.
There is another matter on which I should like to take the hon. Gentleman to task. He said that the situation over the past 24 hours had shown the House of Commons at its worst. What patronising claptrap. I have been in the House somewhat longer than he has and can remember the Parliament of 1970, when, quite rightly, the Labour Opposition took the Conservative Government through the night time after time on the Committee stages of the Industrial Relations Act 1972 and the European Communities Act 1972.
That has happened many times over the years—it is a perfectly legitimate use of parliamentary time by the Opposition. If the Opposition believe that what the Government are doing is inimical to the interests of the country or the constitution, they have a manifest duty to use every legitimate parliamentary weapon at their disposal to delay the progress of the legislation concerned and try to persuade the Government to think again. The tactic has been used with consummate brilliance by such people as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom we are so glad to see back in the House—not today, but this week. It was used with great brilliance by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) when he represented Ardwick. I remember past masters such as Michael Foot and John Mendelson, who kept the House up night after night. Their brilliant speeches were devastatingly disturbing for the Government of the day but they were, nevertheless, a proper use of parliamentary time by the Opposition.
As I listened to my right hon. and hon. Friends—and I single out my right hon. and loquacious Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I thought of the late Bernard Braine, much-loved former Father of the House. [Interruption.] That was a most unworthy and disgusting remark for the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) to make from a sedentary position. Bernard Braine was a distinguished Father of the House and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did he say?"] He said that he was bonkers. Anyone who can utter such a remark is beneath contempt in the opinion of decent people.
I can remember many others. Ivan Lawrence, thankfully, is not the late Ivan Lawrence, although he is sadly no longer a Member of the House. Such people used these weapons time and again, perfectly legitimately. What has been done? The past 24 hours have seen an exercise of parliamentary good manners—not bad manners—and an expression of parliamentary frustration. That frustration is shared by Liberal Democrat Members. They have not seen eye to eye with us on all the Bill's aspects but they believe, as we do, that for the Bill to be taken through all its stages in two consecutive days was wrong.
It has been pointed out that Prime Minister's Question Time was lost today. The fault does not lie with the Opposition. At any moment during Committee, it would have been possible for the Government, with the cohorts at their command, to move that further consideration be adjourned, or not to have moved the 10 o'clock motion last night. If Government Members had wanted Prime

Minister's questions to be held, it could have been done. However, they were obviously afraid of the devastating ridicule that would have been heaped on the Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is being barracked by Members sitting on the Treasury Bench. Is that because they are embarrassed by the fiasco they produced by moving the 10 o'clock motion and trying to force the business through because they believed that we had no stomach to pursue the matter?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am not one to be intimidated by the embarrassment of Government Members. One of the most notable features of the debates of the past 24 or more hours has been that, with one exception, no Labour Back Bencher has spoken in support of the measure. One or two Labour Members have expressed some disquiet—most notably, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—but Labour Members have not supported their Government.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department condemned himself when he admitted that this is not emergency legislation. Had it been, he would have received the unequivocal support of the Opposition. I have sat through the debates on every piece of emergency legislation introduced during the past 30 years; most of it was introduced by my party, although some was introduced by Labour.
For example, we were summoned back to Parliament after the terrible bombing in Omagh a couple of years ago, to rush through legislation that has, I understand, never been used. Nevertheless, we accepted that there was a prima facie case for the legislation. We supported it, inconveniencing ourselves to do so; that was right. It was our duty.
The Minister would not have had to ask the Opposition to support emergency legislation; support would have been given at every stage of the proceedings.

Mr. Hogg: Although it is always right that the House should respond to an emergency, it should never deprive itself of the duty and obligation to scrutinise legislation. It is our business to ensure that Bills leave this place in a perfect state.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course it is. The point made by my right hon. and learned Friend is wholly compatible with mine. When we were summoned back to consider that emergency legislation, one of the best speeches that I have heard for many a long year was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). He had grave reservations about the measure and said so, quite properly.
In cases of true emergency legislation, we are happy to co-operate to ensure passage through the House. However, by any stretch of the imagination, the Bill is not an emergency provision. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department admitted as much and suggests his continued agreement.
Throughout those long hours in Committee, we asked for whom the legislation was being introduced. What is it for? Who wants it? As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, who is it to


please? I do not blame hon. Members who did not want to sit up all night, but I want to make it plain to those who were not in the Chamber that real fear and concern were expressed that the legislation is being pushed through the House at the behest of two gentlemen. They were elected to the House, but have never chosen to take their seats. They want to enjoy the facilities of the House without taking the Oath or making the Affirmation, which we all do. There is fear that the measure is being introduced to accommodate those two, even though they have done nothing to signify their complete agreement to the peace process.
We have had no decommissioning, and we have still not had General de Chastelain's first report. In the context of the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, it would at the very least have been politic to wait for that first report before introducing the Bill. We were told on Second Reading that the Bill would in some way facilitate the peace process—that although the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement and no one said that it was, nevertheless it is tangential and complementary to it, and will assist its development. The Under-Secretary is nodding at those comments. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office laughs. I do not consider it a laughing matter in any sense.
We have had a Bill presented to us, but at no stage has either of the two principal Ministers, for both of whom we have a high regard, told us who asked for it, what precisely it is for, why it has to be enacted now and whether it is part of another series of suggestions by Senator Mitchell. If it is not, is it because it has been specifically requested by Messrs Adams and McGuinness? That is what is suspected by Opposition Members, especially Ulster Unionist Members.
I remind everyone that we would not be talking about any peace process were it not for the bravery—some even think the foolhardy bravery, although I do not—of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party, because without Ulster Unionist co-operation there could be no peace process and no prospect of its success. So why upset the Unionist community by doing things that make them feel under pressure from those who have not yet properly subscribed to the democratic process?
During these debates, we have talked much about the dual mandate. I am told that the Labour party has in its constitution a clause that says that no member shall have a dual mandate—that no member shall be, for instance, a Member of the European Parliament and a Member of this Parliament. I am also told that most of those who currently enjoy a dual mandate in either the Scottish Parliament and this House or the National Assembly for Wales and this House, are encouraged to make a choice as to which they would prefer. That is a perfectly proper thing for the Labour party to say to its members, but it is an extension of that that has been debated over the past two days. Many Opposition Members ask how someone can be a Minister in a Government in one country and a Back-Bench legislator in another. That is seen to be an anomaly in a Bill that is riddled with anomalies.
Another thing that has caused great concern on the Opposition Benches has been the Government's unwillingness to contemplate any amendment that touches on reciprocity. Even amendments for which the Ministers

have expressed some sympathy—both hon. Gentlemen have done so for certain amendments—have not been accepted.
Had we had a normal timetable for the Bill and a Report stage in a few days' time, there would have been an opportunity for amendments to be tabled on Report; and then, as frequently happens, Ministers could have said, "We do not quite like the way that you have phrased that amendment, but we shall table an amendment that will not only be sympathetic but will echo your wishes." We have had none of that, and nor have we even had a promise of amendments in another place.
Therefore, what are we to think but that we have a Government who are totally obdurate on this issue, and who are not prepared to do more than pay lip-service to the deep and abiding concerns of those who know this problem inside out, many of whom have lived their lives and lost many of their friends in Ulster? The Government are not prepared to accept a single amendment here or in another place. That is most unfortunate, to put it mildly. It is small wonder that many Opposition Members fear that this is the thin end of the wedge.
Many Opposition Members were less than happy about the Minister's perfectly sincere comment on Second Reading about the Oath. He was prepared to say that there were no current plans to change it, but he was unable to give the sort of categorical commitment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the Shadow Home Secretary, asked for, quite reasonably, in her opening speech.
It is against that background that we must decide how to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote tonight. We did not vote officially against the Bill on Second Reading, as the Minister knows. We supported a number of amendments that we believe would have gone a long way towards allaying the legitimate fears and concerns of Opposition Members, particularly our friends in Ulster.
Not a single one of those amendments has been accepted, and we have not even had a promise to table amendments along those lines in the other place. We are left with a Bill that is manifestly unsatisfactory and riddled with anomalies. We believe that the Bill will send out many wrong signals in Ulster.
We do not wish to send out wrong signals on the issue of the peace process. Therefore, I want to end where I began. I want there to be no doubt in any quarter of this House as to the Opposition's full support for the peace process and the Good Friday agreement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and my noble Friend Lord Mayhew played a significant part in the peace process. That work has been generously and properly acknowledged by Labour Ministers, as I acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister.
Let no one say that what has been said by the Opposition over the past 24 hours is in any way designed to undermine the peace process. Quite the contrary—we believe that the Bill is itself so full of anomalies and fears for the Ulster Unionist community that it could be a problem. We hope that it will not be a problem, and we know that it is not the intention of the Government that it should be.
We underline our support for the peace process but, in view of the fact that we have had no satisfactory answers to the amendments, I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Winnick: I do not challenge the right of the Opposition to oppose, or their right to exploit every parliamentary opportunity. For me to say otherwise would be humbug and hypocrisy. I spent 18 years on the Opposition Benches, and I cannot now say that the Opposition should not do what they believe they should do.
There is, however, the question whether the Conservatives' actions at a sensitive time in Northern Ireland are right and proper. I take the view that this has been a disastrous day for Parliament. I believe that what the Opposition have done today—I do not challenge their right to do it—was most inappropriate, and I will explain why.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—whom I greatly respect—said that his remarks should not in any way given the impression that the Conservative party is against the peace process. Those are very important words, and all of us on the Labour Benches appreciate the widespread support for the peace process, including among many Opposition Members.
The hon. Gentleman was cheered on various occasions during his speech—but when he referred to the peace process, there were no cheers. That in itself is rather alarming.
Opposition Members said that no Labour Back Bencher had spoken in favour during the debates. However, I know of no one on the Labour Benches, apart from one hon. Friend, who does not agree with the sentiments of the Bill. As Opposition Members know, it is not unusual for Government Back Benchers not to speak when Opposition Members take up so much time. We are not against the Bill, so why should we have spoken? The silence of Labour Members on Second Reading and in Committee should not be taken as a lack of support for the Bill.
The Bill will end several anomalies. However, it is also important because it will further normalise relations between this country and the Irish Republic. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke about the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister. I am pleased that in the past 15 years—I do not say from when we were elected—there has been a substantial improvement in relations between this country and the Irish Republic. That is right and it is the way to proceed. I have always paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon for the way in which he initiated the peace process. I may have some criticisms, but what he did was in the national interest and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has consolidated the process in ways that the large majority in the House support.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is not the Irish Republic a sovereign independent state with its own Parliament and a constitutional court? Did it seek the Bill? No one has said that it did. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by normalising relations when that will involve opening up the House of Commons, with its responsibilities to the British electorate, to foreign citizens who are proud of who they are and whom we respect?

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend the Minister has explained that both on Second Reading and in his remarks just now.
I am suspicious of some of the opposition to the Bill. I excuse those on the Opposition Front Bench; I know that they are in favour of the peace process. We have differences of opinion and criticise each other, but I take their word that they are in favour of the peace process. However, four Unionist Members are in the Chamber, and three of them are against the peace process.

Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: No, I shall be very brief. Three out of the four Unionists in the Chamber were against the peace process and the Good Friday agreement from the very beginning. As we all know, some Opposition Back Benchers are against the peace process and the agreement.
Much of the opposition today and throughout the night came from hon. Members who have opposed the Good Friday agreement and from others who have a great deal of anti-Irish spite. They have used the opportunity to prolong our proceedings. The Bill is right. It will help the peace process and further normalise relations with the Irish Republic. I hope that it will receive a large majority on Third Reading.

Mr. Maginnis: There was a difference between the Minister's opening and his closing remarks. In his opening remarks, he emphasised the special relationship that existed between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom and suggested that the Bill was a necessary concession based on that relationship. The Minister need not go to the trouble of looking up the reference: I can tell him that the phrase "special relationship" occurs twice in the opening paragraphs. That should enable him to concentrate on my speech. On Third Reading, the Minister tells the House that the Bill represents a minimal constitutional and procedural change—one that is of no great import. How does he reconcile those two attitudes, struck within 24 hours of each other?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: If I had made such diverse remarks, I would have to reconcile them. However, if the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks on Second Reading with care, he will see that they are on all fours with my remarks on Third Reading. The Bill represents a small step in the broader context of the creation of a stronger special relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. I said that on Second Reading and I have now repeated it. I have never suggested—indeed, I have denied throughout—that the Bill makes a big constitutional change.

Mr. Maginnis: I have considerable sympathy for both Ministers who have borne the burden of taking the Bill through the House. However, their performance, while gutsy, has betrayed the fact that they do not in their hearts believe that it is a good thing, not only to divide the House down the middle, but to have in their party's ranks many Labour Members who have, in the past 24 hours, told me that they wonder what the Government are about.
People are understandably confused by what we have heard, for the simple reason that we have not been given a clear exposition as to who was involved, not in consultations, but in creating the concept that Members of the Dail want to be patronised by the UK Government


acting as though they were old colonialists. People do not want to be so patronised. I have been in Dublin on numerous occasions over the past three weeks; I spent 48 hours there last week, during which time I spoke to journalists, to business men and professional people and to Back Benchers from all the political parties, as well as to political leaders. Not one person with whom I spoke expressed any desire for the Bill and most of them denied having any knowledge of it. The Government are being foolish, not only in terms of the Opposition parties, but in terms of their own Back Benchers.
In the past 24 hours, the question has been asked several times why a Bill that is not emergency and urgent legislation has had to be rushed through in two consecutive days. Why could the normal processes whereby legislation passes through the House not be employed? I do not know whether the answer has anything to do with the fact that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and other old Labour Members were high on the list of questions to be put to the Prime Minister on his 1,000th day in office. Proceedings on the Bill gave Ministers a useful lesson in avoiding the scrutiny of dissidents on their own side.
To sustain their position, the Government have had to be "misleading"—I cannot think of a better word. However, the Government have not clearly enunciated how we reached our present position. It is time that there was a little frankness about the part that was played by my party and my party leader. The Minister has suggested that consultation took place. When I pressed him on the issue and said that consultation after the event and after decisions had been made was not proper consultation—I tried to intervene but was not permitted to do so—he said that he was not really there so he did not know what was going on. The hon. Gentleman cannot say to the House, "There was consultation with the leader of the Ulster Unionist party but I am not terribly sure because I do not know what was going on and when that consultation took place." It is an issue that he might reasonably clarify. I hope that he does so with the sort of frankness that I would expect from him.

Mr. O'Brien: I shall be entirely clear with the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to discover precisely what discussions the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had with Ministers, he should first approach his right hon. Friend rather than trying to get the information first hand from me. However, as I understand it, clause 2 is entirely the result of the consultation that took place with the right hon. Gentleman who is the leader of his party. The views of Ulster Unionists have been recognised within the context of the Bill, but that may not be all that the hon. Gentleman wanted. I do not know, because I did not hear all the representations that he made. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman could alert him to the precise nature of the representations that were made.

Mr. Maginnis: I think that there is a degree of frankness in what the Minister now says. When the proposal was put to my right hon. Friend, he expressed clearly his antipathy to it. He said that it was entirely unnecessary. I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland nods with some vigour. Not

being able to make the impression on Downing Street that he had hoped to, and to have the proposal withdrawn, my right hon. Friend pointed out there would be a conflict of interest and hence—

Mr. George Howarth: To put the record straight, neither my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department nor I said at any stage that the First Minister, the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, wanted these measures. Nor did we say that as a result of consultation he wanted them. He was consulted and he expressed reservations. Some of those reservations were taken into account and embodied in clause 2.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful. My right hon. Friend voted against the Bill on Second Reading. The reality is that we were concerned not with recent events but with how we reached a situation in which an unnecessary and patronising piece of legislation came before the House and occupied us in the Chamber for more than two days, and almost three.
We have heard also that there was consultation with the Irish Government. I have no knowledge—I stand to be corrected—that the Irish Government sought to initiate legislation that they could not reciprocate. Indeed, they had no desire to reciprocate and no ability to do so. These matters have been well and truly illustrated throughout our hours and days of debate.
We now approach the nub of the issue: who negotiated with Her Majesty's Government? The answer is Sinn Fein, which is the only Irish political party that could have an interest in the Bill. Sinn Fein will be disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann and my colleagues managed to get clause 2 included in the measure, because that party's objective is to portray itself as the only all-Irish party with governmental responsibility in both jurisdictions. However, as I said on Second Reading, the Taoiseach—the political leader of the Irish Republic—has made it clear that he does not want unreconstructed terrorists in any coalition Government that he may lead.
That lesson could be learned by those in this House who would smuggle members of Sinn Fein-IRA—unreconstructed terrorists, associated with terrorist organisations, who retain guns and bombs—around the protection that Madam Speaker gives the House, and provide them with offices, telephones and £50,000 a year each. I am pleased that common sense prevailed throughout the House and that the Government, whatever excuse they may proffer, have been persuaded not to usurp the power of the Chair, which protects us all and has traditionally done that, both during my time in the House and long before.
Ministers claim that the Bill is not threatening, but that is a subjective view. It would be more objective to consider whether the Bill is a reconciling measure. Little reconciliation has occurred in the past few weeks at the Government's behest. I do not want to stray from the Bill, but the Government have taken the one action on policing that would alienate most people in Northern Ireland. As part of their decision-making process, the name of the


Royal Ulster Constabulary will disappear. That has achieved nothing. Ministers refused to comment on that. Perhaps we can—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to depart from the Bill but promptly did so. We are on Third Reading, and the hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Maginnis: I acknowledge that point. I said that I did not want to enter into a discussion on the RUC, but I should have liked to refer to the matter. However, I accepted your guidance, Sir Alan.
I have shown the Government's carelessness of the sensitivities of ordinary, decent people, not only in Northern Ireland, but in the Irish Republic. The Government must abandon the notion that a majority of 170 heralds the return of colonial times.
We have to ask ourselves whether any recent event, including the introduction of the Bill, is likely to help with the one issue that is important to all our striving to achieve lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Everyone knows that I am referring to the dismantling and disarmament of terrorist organisations. The laziest member of the family who does the least work—whether at university or in his job—can lie in bed to dinner time knowing that the registered envelope will arrive on the doormat. By enamelling on to the periphery of the Belfast agreement concession after concession to the IRA, the Government have presented that registered envelope to the organisation so that such people do not have to work, as the rest of us have to, at moving things forward—often at our own inconvenience and soon to our own embarrassment.

Mr. Donaldson: My hon. Friend talks about striving for peace in Northern Ireland and I welcome his comments. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made remarks, which he repeats at every opportunity in the House, about those of us who have concerns about aspects of the process—concerns that he has just expressed. We may have concerns, but does my hon. Friend agree that that does not mean that we are against peace in Northern Ireland? Many of us who voice them have suffered at the hands of terrorists and want to end terrorism in Northern Ireland. That is why we express our worries. The objective of my hon. Friend and I is the dismantling of terrorism in Northern Ireland, which is the only way to achieve real peace.

Mr. Maginnis: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. Although we want the same thing for those whom we represent, we find it difficult to reconcile on a means by which to achieve it.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Maginnis: I shall not give way because I must end my speech.
The Government must recognise the difficulty that ordinary people have in trying to move the process forward. By introducing such legislation, they do nothing—absolutely nothing—to help.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The way in which the Bill has been debated has shown the importance of the issues that it raises. It relates principally to Northern Ireland, but also to Ireland and to the United Kingdom, so we all have a duty to take it seriously. It is clearly part of a constitutional process and part of and related to a peace process. There can be no one of good will in the House who does not want the peace process to succeed and the constitutional relationship between this country and Ireland to be on the best and most secure footing. They therefore want a Bill that improves that constitutional link as well.
The Bill could have been better explained, and would have been more welcome, had it been part of a parallel process in Ireland and the United Kingdom, particularly because Ireland is evaluating what constitutional changes it might want to make. A report is due this year. We have all had to judge the Bill on what has been presented to us, even though there is clearly a much bigger agenda all round. My hon. Friends and I voted for Second Reading and have been in the Chamber throughout the past day and a bit, tabling a new clause and supporting or opposing amendments on their merits. We regret that we have not managed to amend the Bill.
On Third Reading, the question that we must ask ourselves is whether the Bill contains two proposals of merit. Irrespective of the way in which the Bill has been presented and handled, should we support it on Third Reading, given the words that are on the Order Paper? The answer is that we will vote for the Bill on Third Reading, because the two specific proposals that it contains seem to us, on balance, to have merit. Those two proposals are, first, that the relationship between people in the Irish Parliament and people in this Parliament should be at least on the same footing as the relationship between people in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and people of this Parliament; and secondly, that the anomaly which allows people to be in the Irish Seanad and the Northern Ireland Assembly should be corrected to allow people to be in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in either House of the Irish Parliament. We shall therefore support the Bill.
The approach of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), the Minister and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was entirely reasonable. I cannot say the same for the approach of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). He unjustifiably criticised people who have a perfectly valid point of view, and attributed to them motives that he could not justify given their activities over many years.
The Bill has not had better support because it tries to gain the confidence of the republican minority in Northern Ireland without at the same time seeking to gain the confidence of the Unionist majority. The peace process and the constitutional process require both communities to be more confident as a result of the Bill.
Ministers know our position. We do not blame the two Ministers for the way in which the Bill has been handled. They have been assiduous and, like us, have served their time during the many days and hours that we have considered this measure. However, the Government are in charge of the timetable, as you and your colleagues have often told us, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They decided that the


Bill would be brought before the House for Second Reading on one day, for Committee stage the following day, and for Report and Third Reading on the third day—at least in chronological time—without interruption and against all the usual conventions of the House.
When considering constitutional Bills, it is especially important that we follow the usual constitutional timetable and give time for proper consideration. We need to be particularly careful with short Bills to ensure that they are not hiding a multitude of future difficulties. We have been down that road before during my years in the House.
The Bill was not in the manifesto or the Queen's Speech. It was not in the Good Friday agreement. It was conceived in mystery sometime before December, published without explanation in December, presented on the day the House rose— for the recess, introduced without justification in January, and pushed through the House without agreement on three consecutive days, during the last of which we have sat for 24 hours. We have still not been given an explanation for or justification of why this measure had to be handled in that way.
As the Minister and I had cause to reflect in the middle of this afternoon, it is a bizarre outcome that on the 1,000th day of the first Labour Government for almost two decades, instead of the Prime Minister putting his record to Parliament for the scrutiny of the House, we had to have a Committee stage of a Bill that two months ago no one envisaged we would be debating.
I repeat the question. We can guess, but we have never had an answer: why this Bill? The Minister said—I took careful note—that it was a small step to improve the constitutional relationship. I accept that, but why was the measure not introduced in the Northern Ireland Act 1998? Why was it not introduced in 1999? Why was the Bill not in the Queen's Speech, the Good Friday agreement or the manifesto? Why now and in a way that requires us to drop all other business, defer all other activity, eliminate Prime Minister's questions and Department for International Development questions and to delay other legislation? What is the urgency? No one has answered the question. No one has ever told us the facts.
I have tabled a set of questions to the Home Secretary and a set of questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland today to try to obtain the answer to those questions. Before the House rises, I will table similar questions to the Prime Minister. If the two Secretaries of State do not know the answer, perhaps the Prime Minister knows it.
I believe that, although the Bill is clearly not formally linked to decommissioning—it should not be—it is probably informally linked. That may not be a bad thing, but we ought to have been told. I say to my colleagues on the Ulster Unionist Benches that if the truth of the matter was that the measure was an initiative of Sinn Fein, we might still have supported it, but we would rather have been told. Our Ulster Unionist and other colleagues would have rather known where the measure came from than have to speculate and never receive an answer.

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman is right in supposing that the measure is linked to decommissioning, would he not be wise to defer voting in favour of it until we see whether decommissioning takes place?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks a good question. We had a debate earlier about whether the Bill and decommissioning should be formally linked, and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) made it clear that we did not think that they should. We said that the Bill was about the rights and liberties of people and that that ought not to be linked to an on-going, part-public, part-private process.
Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I hope that decommissioning works. The Bill may be the trigger to make it work better. We do not know, but we do not believe that we ought to withhold our support on the ground that only if decommissioning happens will it be right to implement the Bill. If the Bill is right on the face of it—the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and he understands the point—we believe that we ought to vote for the Bill, even if some reasons for it have not been shared with the House.
In my almost 17 years in this place, it has often been the short Bills and those introduced with least warning that have been the most controversial and the least satisfactory.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Dogs.

Mr. Hughes: On a minor matter, the legislation to deal with dangerous dogs was unsatisfactory. On a more severe matter, the emergency legislation introduced the summer before last was unsatisfactory. I was not here at the time, but I understand that the Bill dealing with the Official Secrets Act 1911 was a two-clauser. It was certainly a one-page Bill.

Dan Norris: It was introduced by a Liberal Government.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed, it was. It was pushed through the House in one day without the scrutiny that it should have had. We believe that the shorter the Bill, the more the House needs the explanation and justification for it and the more the Government need to carry their colleagues with them. That is why I say to the hon. Member for Walsall, North and the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) that, when the Government control the timetable, to suggest that it is wrong for hon. Members to question, argue, and, if necessary, vote and delay progress, is to undermine the only basis that we have in this place for making sure that when the Government propose something, Parliament has a chance to do at least a half-decent job.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman should be careful. I started my remarks by saying that the Opposition have every right to explore and use every opportunity to exploit the parliamentary situation. I then went on to say why, on this occasion, they were wrong. I in no way included the Liberal Democrats. Therefore, please let it not be said that


I in any way deny the Opposition's right at any given time to use whatever parliamentary opportunities there are. In my judgment, they were wrong on this occasion.

Mr. Hughes: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and if that is his position I accept it.
We have had an extended debate because the Bill has never been explained and the proper procedures of the House have not been followed. If we have taken more than 24 hours on the Bill, approaching a record sitting since the war, it is because the Government should not behave in the way in which they have, whatever the legislation's merits. When we are talking about peace in Northern Ireland, they should be more sensitive and have greater respect for all hon. Members.

Mr. Forth: Unfortunately, this is a bad Bill which has been badly handled by the Government. The Government have only themselves to blame for the mess that they have got themselves into, if that is the way in which they see it.
If the Bill illustrates nothing else, it is that yet again even a Government with a gigantic majority cannot treat the House with contempt and arrogance, that they must respect the traditions and procedures of the House, and that they must expect that their Bills, long or short, large or small, will and should be properly scrutinised by due process in the House.
That has not been the case with the Bill because the Government thought that they could slip a bad and controversial Bill through without proper scrutiny and, as a result, they have received a bloody nose. I hope that the House will be able to demonstrate again and again that, if the Government are not prepared to allow their Bills to be scrutinised in the proper way, that, or something similar, is likely to be the result.
I opposed the Bill on Second Reading and I will oppose it on Third Reading because it does something that is unnecessary and dangerous, which undermines my concept of nationhood, of national identity and of the role of a legislature in an independent sovereign nation state. It may be a small Bill, but it manages to do all that in just two substantive clauses.
Worse than that is that after more than 24 hours of debate we have failed to get to the bottom of the Government's motives in bringing the Bill to the House at this time. On the one hand, on 24 January the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who has played a distinguished and responsible role in our proceedings, said:
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) should not labour under the delusion that the Bill is the product of some arrangement between Ministers and Sinn Fein."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 72.]
Yet towards the end of our Committee proceedings, we dragged from the Government the admission that the real motive behind the Bill was that the Government had felt compelled to do a deal with the Irish Government and Sinn Fein.

Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend consider the proposition that one reason why the Government have put

forward two Under-Secretaries to advance the Bill through the House is that they do not know the deal that lies behind the Bill, and that had the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland been on the Front Bench, he might have found it embarrassing to answer the kind of questions that my right hon. Friend and I have asked.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend is typically more generous than I am prepared to be on this occasion. I cannot contemplate or conceive of two Ministers, be they Under-Secretaries, Ministers of State or whatever, taking a Bill through the House without properly knowing its background and provenance. If my right hon. and learned Friend is correct, we can partially exonerate the Ministers who have taken the Bill through. I am not prepared to believe that. It is a sad day when Ministers in a Government who profess to believe in open government, honesty, accountability, transparency—call it what one will—are prepared to sit through this length of proceedings without telling the House why they have introduced the Bill, its provenance and why it has to be pushed through in such a hurry.
Those are the reasons why I am angry about the Bill, why I have been against it, and why I still believe that, although we have been able to give it some degree of scrutiny, the Government have been less than honest with the House and the people of this country, and will live to regret it.

Mr. Cash: I will, of course, vote against Third Reading. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and I am glad to note the change of heart by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who, I understand, are now going to vote with us on Third Reading.
It is a pity that my amendment did not receive the support that I expected. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said from a sedentary position, but perhaps that is just as well. In any event, I strongly believe that the Committee should have supported my amendment, which would have required anyone, before taking a seat in this place or, indeed, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to disavow terrorism. I remain firmly of that opinion.
As a number of speakers have eloquently pointed out, we have been given no answers, and we do not know who is behind the measure. I personally believe that the Secretary of State is not present because he would have found it impossible to answer some of the questions that have been posed—not because he could not have answered them, but because he would not have wanted to do so. To be pressed continuously would, I think, have been a source of considerable embarrassment.
I suggest that the appropriate Select Committee—the Home Affairs Committee or, indeed, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—summon the Secretary of State and, in the course of formal proceedings, put questions to him that these junior Ministers have neglected to answer during the past 24 hours. I trust that the members of those Select Committees will take up my suggestion with the appropriate Chairmen, and put it on the agenda.
The passing of the Bill to the House of Lords will give that House, in its present form, an opportunity to prove its worth. The question of whether the House of Lords is prepared to act on behalf of the country as a whole—


given the electoral dictatorship that we have witnessed during today's proceedings—provides that House with an ample opportunity to prove whether it really has constitutional spine. If it is prepared at short notice, following all the arguments that we have rehearsed, to improve on those arguments, to examine the Bill's implications and to demonstrate that, as a second Chamber, it is worthy of the opportunities offered to it, I for one will give it my full support.
Much as I like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I disagree with his reasons for supporting the Bill. The hon. Gentleman represents a great party—a party which, with some leapfrogging and some diversionary tactics, goes back to the origins of this home rule question. It was, after all, Gladstone himself who, in November 1886, defeated the Conservative Government and introduced a Bill whose object was to exclude Irish Members. I found it ironic, to say the least, that the hon. Gentleman argued exactly the opposite case.
Having said that, I must add that the real questions that lie at the heart of the Bill have not been answered. Whether the Bill can be linked to decommissioning is, in my view, a bit of a red herring; I think that the real issue is the substantive question whether it would be right and proper for us to pass a Bill of this kind, on this notice, with this apparent urgency, without being given any explanation. There are means open to the House to ensure that those questions are put and to insist that they are answered.

Mr. Robathan: I shall not detain the House for long, not least because I have sat through more than half the 25 hours of the sitting, although I have not served the House and the country as well as some of my hon. Friends. I have been privy to a unique sight today: the House managed to sit in two places in the same building at the same time, but, theoretically, on different days. The House needs to deal with that.
Having listened to so much of the debate in what has been a long sitting, I have been convinced that I need to vote against the Bill. I am delighted that we will do so with the support of our Front-Bench team.
I did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading because I wanted to see what it was actually about and was advised that we could improve it, but, sadly, notwithstanding the valiant efforts of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), we have not been able to do so. The more one has heard in the past 25 hours, the worse it has become. Hon. Members who have not attended the sitting should have come to discover what the Government want to do in their name because it is shabby legislation.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a very good speech. To correct my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the Liberal Democrats belong to a once great party; it no longer is. Having made a good speech, the hon. Gentleman drew completely the wrong conclusions as to what he should do. [Interruption.] I hear a little barracking from hon. Members who have recently arrived at the sitting.
I shall give an example of the grubbiness of the measure. We in the Conservative party have heard a lot about our treasurer, Mr. Ashcroft, who we are told cannot serve two masters, yet that is exactly what the Bill wishes someone in Ireland to do. That is completely illogical, but I will not stray down that road.
The Minister said that it is not an important constitutional Bill. It is an important constitutional precedent. That must be obvious to even the dimmest person on the Treasury Bench. As with so much other legislation, the Government have tried with the Bill to have constitutional change off-the-cuff. It may have two substantive clauses, but it is off-the-cuff, not thought through and confused.
In the Second Reading debate, we heard that the Bill was part of the complementary business to the Belfast agreement. Indeed, clauses 2 and 3 refer to the agreement, or the Northern Ireland Act 1998, yet we now know that it is entirely linked to the agreement through deals behind closed doors, in smoke-filled rooms, in underground bunkers in Armagh, or wherever the deals may have been made. The Bill is entirely linked to the 1998 Act and the agreement.
Those of us who genuinely want peace in Northern Ireland find it appalling that we should be asked, as a proud House that is respected throughout the world, to pass such dreadful legislation at the behest of two former, or possibly still practising, terrorists who happen to have been elected to the House.
From the long title to the end of the Bill, it is badly written, badly thought out and a hopeless piece of legislation. If I were a Minister presenting it, I would be embarrassed. At the beginning, there is a misprint. It states: "To to". Then it says "remove the disqualification". That is a double negative. Even I know, therefore, that it should be cited as the qualification Bill in the last clause. From the beginning to the end, it is a rotten bit of legislating. We are legislating in haste—although not as hastily as the Government would have wanted—but the Government will repent at leisure.
Excellent points have been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not want to labour those points. We need to know whose idea the Bill was and what its genesis is. What is the motivation? All Opposition Members know that the Bill is yet another deal, yet another sop, yet another bribe to Sinn Fein following the emasculation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Does the Minister know about clause 63 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which will exempt Noraid funding from north America to a political party in the United Kingdom? If he does not know about it, he should: the provision is an absolute disgrace. If we do not want foreign funding for political parties, why will that clause exempt Noraid?
If we want genuine peace, we have to realise that it cannot be built on sand. If we want it, we shall have to have genuinely firm foundations, and be willing to be firm and to stand up and make tough decisions. Furthermore, peace must be built on trust. The Disqualifications Bill demonstrates that we cannot have trust when we do not even know, for heaven's sake, whose idea it was to introduce this shabby little piece of legislation.

Mr. Thompson: On Second Reading, I said that this was a squalid little Bill. After all we have been through, I say that it is still a squalid little Bill.
There are those who said that this type of Bill would help the peace process. I can only say that it will harm the peace process by undermining the Unionist people's confidence in the peace process. All they see in the Bill is another concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. Therefore, rather than helping the peace process, the Bill will greatly harm it.
After all our proceedings, the Government have made no changes to the Bill, although Ministers said that they would re-examine some of its provisions. I ask Ministers to re-examine one of the Bill's aspects in which I am particularly interested—its wording on the "legislature of Ireland", the "Government of Ireland" and "other than Ireland". Hon. Members should describe Ireland by its correct name—the Republic of Ireland—so that there is no disagreement on what we are talking about.
It is a bad Bill, and I shall vote against it.

Mr. Fabricant: I remind the House that, if we carry through constitutional change without examining it in considerable detail, we frequently find that once the legislation is on the statute book, we end up with wording that may not be exactly be what we foresaw. Those are not my words, but comments on the Bill made yesterday by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
This is a constitutional Bill, which is why its Committee stage was taken on the Floor of the House. Throughout the night, however, we heard nothing but misleading statements from Ministers. At one point, when we were asking for reciprocity, we were told that it is not needed, as there is not the equivalent in the Dail of the House of Commons Disqualifications Act 1975. Subsequently, however, we were told by Ministers—we had to drag it out of them—that one has to be a citizen of the Republic of Ireland to sit in the Dail.
Time and again, Opposition Members asked why we need reciprocity. The answer was that we need it because of the breach of trust. Why has there been a breach of trust? It occurred because the Government have made concession after concession to Sinn Fein-IRA, with no reciprocity from them.
This is a bad Bill, which has been handled unconstitutionally in the House. I shall vote against it.

Mr. Hogg: The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—who introduced the debate on Third Reading, but is no longer in the Chamber—started his speech by saying that the past day's events have shown the House in a bad light. I do not agree with that at all. What was wrong was the Government's decision to schedule Second Reading for Monday, and to push forward consideration in Committee. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, the Committee was right to exercise its powers to scrutinise legislation.
This is an important Bill, and it is untruthful to suggest otherwise. To make that clear, one has merely to state what it will do—it will enable a Member of the Irish

Parliament to sit in this House. That is an important proposition, but it is one with which I disagree. It raises inherent problems of conflict with regard to duty and confidentiality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made clear.
Precedents have been cited. The House was told that similar provisions apply to Commonwealth legislatures. That is true, but if we were to start again, we would not give the Commonwealth Parliament the sort of power that is being given to the Ireland Parliament.
Moreover, we are creating a precedent for the future. If these provisions are to apply to Members of the Irish Parliament, how can we deny a similar dispensation for their equivalents in France, Spain or Italy? I doubt that a majority of hon. Members would consider that right at all.
Another problem is the lack of reason. Conservative Members have pressed Ministers to explain the reason for the Bill, but no proper explanation was given. It was put to us that the Bill tidies up a constitutional anomaly, but I do not believe that. I believe that a deal has been done. One reason for the Secretary of State's absence from the Front Bench is that he would have been constrained to reveal the nature of the deal. I do not believe that we should make concessions to Sinn Fein—not now, and probably not at all.
Finally, I must tell the hon. Member for Walsall, North that I come from a family, both sides of which have been deeply concerned with Ireland for many years. My mother was born in county Galway. I have supported the peace process to the extent that I have voted in the Labour Lobby against my own party. However, I do not believe that this concession—if that is what it is—should be made.
The Bill does not normalise relations; rather, it makes abnormal relations. We are departing from the principles that should govern our relationships with sovereign states, and the constitution of the House.
I am glad that there will be a Division on Third Reading, and that my colleagues on the Front Bench will vote against it. I shall do the same.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Government have sought the authority of the House for what has proved to be a controversial Bill. I cannot remember when a Secretary of State has not taken a constitutional measure at least through Second Reading. The absence of the Secretary of State characterises this Government's insolent disregard for the proprieties of proper constitutional consultation, which call for consent across the House for a constitutional measure.
I bless the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who first brought the problem into my consciousness. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I am grateful, too, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for his monumental work in examining the propositions contained in the Bill.
The House's only purpose is to give consent—to raising money and to legislation. The Government are indifferent to the propriety that requires a Secretary of State to come to the House to advance this remarkable piece of legislation.
In a curious way, I am grateful to the Government. They have exposed what was unknown before Monday's Second Reading debate to the House, to my constituents and, I regret to admit, to me. The Government propose that Members of another sovereign nation's legislature could become Members of this legislature. Some people have asked who the master is, and others have wondered to whom we owe our responsibility and allegiance.
The Bill is not a shallow or trivial matter. It touches on the most profound questions of citizenship, which involve who we are, to whom we have duties and responsibilities, and why we demand obedience to the law from everyone in this country. As elected representatives, we are responsible to British citizens and accountable to them at elections. We make laws on their authority, but the Government are introducing—through the back door and in a quiet and surreptitious way—a Bill that they say amounts to nothing other than a couple of substantive clauses.
The Minister suggested that the Bill was merely making good an anomaly. I am grateful for that, because it allowed me to discover an anomaly. I was unaware—as, I think, are most people in this country—that, theoretically, Members of other legislatures across the Commonwealth can stand and represent this country through this Parliament. That is the anomaly—a post-colonial anomaly. It should be dealt with, yet this supposed reforming Government of spin doctors try to maintain that the anomaly should extend, dilute and reduce the function of an elected Chamber and its responsibilities and accountabilities. I share the pleasure expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that we shall be voting against Third Reading. This must resonate further than the Chamber.
I noticed on the news on the wireless that no one is giving the reason for people's agitation that Members of a foreign power—a good and dignified friend of ours, honourable and proud in their associations and nationality—can represent this country, even though they do not claim to seek membership of the House. No one has adduced that Members of the Irish Dail or the Irish Government are asking to become Members of this House, yet we—off on a trip, this new Government of ours—ask why should they not, because it merely tidies up an anomaly.
I am grateful to the Government for telling us that they are trying to impose this diluted measure for the benefit of the constituents of places such as Walsall, North and Aldridge-Brownhills. I shall joyously vote against Third Reading. I hope that the House of Lords takes note and rejects the Bill as well.

Mr. MacKay: I think it important, as we conclude the Third Reading debate, that I make it clear from the Dispatch Box why we are voting against Third Reading and why we have taken some twenty-five and a half hours

to see through the Bill's Committee stage and Third Reading. It is, quite simply, because the Government have behaved very shabbily.
It is normal practice to have a Second Reading debate on a Bill and, after a weekend has elapsed, to consider the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. MacKay: No, I am not giving way. There are two perfectly good reasons for this. First, it is an opportunity for the Minister and other Members to reflect on what has been said on Second Reading. Secondly, it gives ample opportunity to table amendments for us to consider and take soundings on before reaching a final decision. There is, and should be, only one exception to this practice—when the Government believe it necessary to bring urgent emergency legislation before the House. I asked and asked whether the Bill was either urgent or emergency legislation. Finally, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department admitted that it was neither urgent nor emergency legislation. Therefore, there was no excuse for bouncing the Bill through so quickly.
As a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House said, legislation that is rushed through is bad and incomplete, particularly when it is rushed through for no good reason in a very small and narrow Bill. I regret that that is all too typical of the Government, who behave in an arrogant and cavalier way towards the House. The Government have had a bloody nose because of their actions. I hope that, in future, the Deputy Chief Whip will think twice before behaving in this way again. Had he behaved correctly, he would not have lost his business.

Mr. George Howarth: First, let me say a brief word about the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I think that he knows from previous encounters that I hold him in high regard. On this occasion, however, there was an element of hyperbole in his comments. He described certain things that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I said. I hope that he will read our words in Hansard and reflect on some of the points that he made. I do not take issue with him, but hope that he may feel that he misrepresented some of the positions that we took. I accept that, if he did so, it would have been inadvertent.
The Ulster Unionists have contributed throughout the proceedings. I have been in the Chamber for the whole time-25 hours or whatever it is—I was away only briefly, as was everyone who took part in the Committee proceedings. Ulster Unionist Members have genuine concerns about the measure; they have repeated them throughout our consideration of the clauses and amendments.
Since he became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has bent over backwards to accommodate the Ulster Unionists, whenever he could—[Interruption.] Hon. Members say that I am off-message. It is not a question of being off-message—it was rather a ticklish moment.
On this occasion, I realise, as does my right hon. Friend, that Ulster Unionist Members disagree with him; they do not accept the motives behind the Bill. However, I ask them to accept—as I think the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has accepted—that between us we have put the record straight. Although the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), was consulted on the measure, we did not imply that he agreed with it. However, as a result of the consultations, clause 2 was added to the Bill. That was the result of direct representations made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Many contributions have been made by Opposition Back-Bench Members. Not for one moment would I suggest that any of the Back-Bench Members who contributed were out of order in any way. Mr. Deputy Speaker would be quick to correct me if I made such a suggestion. Nothing that is on the record, apart from those remarks for which the hon. Members were pulled up by the Chair, was not appropriate for them to say. As individual Members of the House—as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) agreed—they have a right to say what they feel is appropriate. I do not criticise them for that.
However, Opposition Front-Bench Members must answer a slightly different point. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, opened the debate on Second Reading for the Opposition. She made it plain that they would not oppose the Bill's Second Reading, and they did not. She said that they were not opposed to the principle behind the Bill and that they hoped to be able to support it through its remaining stages. I paraphrase the right hon. Lady's remarks, but not, I think, inaccurately. The right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), Opposition Members and the Opposition Chief Whip knew last week what this week's business would be. They had every opportunity to make representations through the usual channels, if they felt that the business was being handled inappropriately. That is why the usual channels exist. They made no such representations.
Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that there is no co-ordination between what takes place on the Opposition Front Benches and what has been happening on their Back Benches. To make that point absolutely clear, let Conservative Members hear what their leader had to say. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today, saying that the Government should have used our huge majority in the House to push this legislation through. Seemingly, he attaches much greater urgency to the measure than do those on the Opposition Front Bench or Back Benches. That shows not only that Opposition Front-Bench Members have lost touch with Back Benchers, but that they have lost touch with the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in a mischievous prank. He knows very well that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that in the context of the lost business, and was

saying that there was no need for Prime Minister's questions to be lost, and that it was the Government's mishandling that led to that fiasco.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is very gallant in the defence that he mounts of the Leader of the Opposition. What I have said about the content of the letter is true, and the hon. Gentleman needs to explain why the Leader of the Opposition has to rely on us to get business through the House, while his Front-Bench team and his Back Benchers are willing to sit through the night to ensure that it is opposed. It simply does not add up.

Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: No; I will not. I think that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would accept that, throughout the night, I have been willing to give way repeatedly. I am losing my voice now, and I do not intend to prolong this matter much further.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will say that I recognise that he raised some sensible points throughout and has been constructive throughout the Bill's progress so far. I am grateful for the support that he has now agreed to give us on Third Reading.
I have a final point to make, and it is a very serious one. The right hon. Member for Bracknell has said that the official Opposition still support the Good Friday agreement and the peace process. I accept that. I accept also that the Liberal Democrats supported—and that some Ulster Unionist Members, in slightly different ways, accept—that peace process. I accept also that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have not set out to damage that peace process in any way over the past 24 hours.
However, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to reflect on the fact that, whatever their intentions are, during the next few days—as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well—some very serious matters will be discussed. General de Chastelain, whom he and I have praised, will be presenting his report on progress on decommissioning. I believe that what has happened in the House over the past 24 hours, instead of helping to lower the temperature in Northern Ireland, has succeeded, albeit unwittingly, in raising the temperature. For that reason, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have reason to regret what he has been involved in over the past 24 hours.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 141

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business for tomorrow will now be progress on remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which will be brought to a conclusion next week. I will give the normal, full business statement tomorrow.

Sir George Young: The Leader of the House has announced that the Government have lost one of the days that they had earmarked for their legislative programme. They have lost it because they did not respond sensitively to legitimate issues raised over the past two days.
Today's Bill, which has provoked the statement, was not in the Queen's Speech. The mode of trial Bill, which will have to be reintroduced following its defeat in another place, will put additional pressure on the Government's programme. Does not all that show that the Government are mismanaging the business of the House trying to get 28 Bills through, and that they should now drop some of their ill-considered and unpopular measures?

Mrs. Beckett: I can only say that the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that his remarks are in no way borne out by the events of the past couple of days. On Second Reading of the Disqualifications Bill, the Conservatives said that they were not opposed to it and did not vote against it. The shadow Home Secretary said that the Opposition would give the Bill a fair wind. If the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a fair wind is almost two full days' debate, I have to tell him that it is not mine.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will agree that I raised that issue at an early stage, because I saw no reason why the Bill should be rushed. When minority parties express an opinion, it should be taken into consideration. Instead, the Bill was rushed through, like a steamroller trying to get ahead of business. Plenty of time could have been taken, rather than wasted, as it has been today.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that he raised that point, in a way that Conservative Members did not. However, I believe that I am right in saying that, like them, he complained about the two days' proceedings being so close together, not about the amount of time given. I do not recall anyone complaining about the amount of time offered at any business statement in which the business was announced.
As I told the hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion, I understand his concerns and we considered the matter. However, as I am sure he is well aware, it is not at all unprecedented for a Bill to be taken through the House in one day, or, indeed, two.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: In emergencies.

Mrs. Beckett: Not necessarily. The Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1996 was taken through the

House in one day, in May 1996. The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996 was also taken through in one day, in October 1996. I shall not bore Opposition Members by listing their sins, but one further example will be regarded as relevant by those hon. Members who have enjoyed the past two days: the last occasion on which a Bill was taken on two consecutive days, as was the Disqualifications Bill, it became the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Member in charge of the Bill was the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).

Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the way in which business has been handled today, the 1,000th day of the Government's term in office, is symbolic of the way in which business has generally been handled over the past two and a half years? That is, with a lack of respect for our traditions, incompetence and overweening arrogance.

Mrs. Beckett: I completely agree with one thing that the hon. Gentleman has said, and that is that it has been quite characteristic of the past two years. It has been gross misjudgment and mishandling on behalf of the Conservative party which has been successful beyond our wildest dreams in talking at considerable length on a Bill that it said it did not oppose. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a three-clause Bill. As a result, the Conservative party succeeded in losing its opportunity to question my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time. It lost also an opportunity to make progress on a Bill that its few remaining supporters in the City want to see on the statute book. I call that three whammys in a row.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady make time for a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so that he can explain to the House and the country—there will be general concern—the answer to the question that we have been posing for the past 26 hours: has a grubby deal been done with Sinn Fein, known terrorists, to pass the Bill that we have just debated?

Mrs. Beckett: I will simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I am sure he heard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State say that most of us in the House do not wish to do or say anything that in any way jeopardises the peace process. I hope that he shares that view.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I say to my right hon. Friend that I think that we handled the Disqualifications Bill excellently? Last night we called the Tories' bluff and won the legislation.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The sad fact is that the Conservative party has lost control of its Back Benchers, and it shows.

Mr. David Maclean: The right hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to the highly successful Protection from Harassment Bill, which the previous Government put through the House with the full agreement of all the Opposition parties. I do not think that anyone suggests that that was an important constitutional measure which deserved to be treated in a different way from the way in which the right hon. Lady has abused the


House over the past 24 hours. It was the Government who lost control; it was the Government who did not bother to move closures; and it was the Government who failed to expedite the Bill in as sensible a fashion as they could. The Government could have simply given sufficient time between Second Reading and remaining stages, including consideration in Committee. The Bill could then have proceeded in a more sensible fashion. That is the right hon. Lady's fault.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman was not here on any of the occasions when we discussed timing and the amount of time given to the Bill. On no occasion were the Government pressed to give more time for the Bill until yesterday.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Surely there are two possibilities regarding the loss of Prime Minister's questions. One is that the Leader of the Opposition wished to avoid them today. The other is that the right hon. Gentleman has lost control of his party.

Mrs. Beckett: There is much in what my hon. Friend says. Either the Leader of the Opposition consented and was happy to see Prime Minister's Question Time lost because he knew for several hours before the deadline fell that that would be the effect of his party's behaviour, or he had lost control of it. He has another characteristic that has been evident over the past two and a half years, which is that he is inclined to make short-termist judgments, such as the letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which I can assure the Conservative party will come back to haunt it on many occasions. As so many of the right hon. Gentleman's gestures come back to haunt him, I think that he should be known as Boomerang Bill.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am not going to play the game of blaming either side. However, I emphasise that the way in which we dealt with the Disqualifications Bill does no credit to the Government or the main Opposition party. I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the unanimity on several occasions in the Select Committee of which she is a distinguished Chair, on seeking more programme motions so that we can deal with business in a business-like fashion. The games that have been played recently do no credit to the House, the Government's business managers or the official Opposition.
I ask the right hon. Lady again to ensure that, when we approach measures in future, efforts will be made to distinguish issues about which there is a clear difference of opinion—between the Front Benches or with the minority parties—and that proper time will be given to debate them. Having done that, we should try to ascertain whether we can determine an agreed programme to tackle them in a business-like way. Having done that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I hope that this will be the hon. Gentleman's last point.

Mr. Tyler: I could hardly hear what you were saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of the noise that Conservative Members made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that I hoped that this was the hon. Gentleman's last point.

Mr. Tyler: It is. The precedents that the Leader of the House cited for moving immediately from one stage of a Bill to another were not similar to the measure that has just been discussed. Having to move so fast did not help hon. Members.

Mrs. Beckett: May I first say to the hon. Gentleman that all hon. Members share the support that he voiced for a sensible programme motion. However, it is not always fashionable for Conservative Members to admit that.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should identify measures that will cause problems and may consequently need more time, and agree about the way in which to handle them. We were in that position when we began to debate the Disqualifications Bill. The shadow Home Secretary made that clear. She said that the Opposition did not oppose the Bill, and that they would give it a fair wind. There was an opportunity to return to the debate on the Bill after 10 o'clock on Monday, but it was not taken. I understand that, because the Opposition had a reasonable time and were right to believe that the issues had been aired. They did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. Under those circumstances, when agreement appears to have been reached, but the agreement is subsequently torn up, difficulties arise. I personally take the Leader of the Opposition's extraordinary and ill-judged letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as support for programme motions.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Last week, the right hon. Lady made a statement to which I responded when business was changed following consideration of the Representation of the People Bill. There was anxiety among Conservative Members and some Labour Members because two Second Readings took place after consideration of the measure. Again, anxiety has been caused because of the treatment of the Disqualifications Bill. The right hon. Lady should appreciate the concern among hon. Members of all parties. Will she assure us that she will talk to business managers to ensure that proposed legislation will be given due regard, that hon. Members will be able to scrutinise and debate it properly, and that it will not be rushed through the House in the same manner as the Disqualifications Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that, on more mature reflection, he might be sorry that he made that point. He is entirely correct that there is a strong parallel between what happened last week and what happened this week. Last week there was an acceptance and an understanding on both sides of the House, including between Front-Bench Members, that there was little of contention to air, but that there were issues that should be aired and that they would be dealt with in proper time. Then what happened was that a group of Conservative Members used the opportunity to try to talk out the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. He knows that that is what happened, because he was here, and we know that that is what happened. Those are precisely the tactics that have often been adopted—I accept, on different grounds—by the same usual suspects.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House has a duty to represent the interests of the


House and all Back Benchers. Does she accept that Ministers have a duty to reply to matters raised during debate sensitively, positively and rationally? Does she regret that that has not been the case, and that she and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland have intentionally misled the House as to the content—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. When I get to my feet, he should sit down. Did I hear him say that the right hon. Lady misled the House?

Mr. Winterton: Yes, I most certainly did. The letter to which the right hon. Lady and the Minister referred—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that statement. He knows the rules of the House, perhaps better than I. I want him to get to his feet only if he will withdraw that statement. No one has misled the House.

Mr. Winterton: The House has been misled because the implication—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement? I advise him to do so. I implore him to withdraw that statement.

Mr. Winterton: If the right hon. Lady—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are no ifs and buts. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that statement.

Mr. Winterton: I will apologise to the House and to the right hon. Lady, but she has misused—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has apologised and has resumed his seat. I shall call only one more hon. Member.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The right hon. Lady will have witnessed the disciplined and successful tactics of her own Back Benchers on Monday evening during the discussion of private business. She will not be surprised that the Opposition have learned from those tactics over the past 24 hours. Will she confirm that she could have used Labour's majority at any stage during the proceedings up till Two o'clock this afternoon to bring the Committee to a close, but she did not do so because she did not want to expose the Prime Minister to questioning from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) or from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)?

Mrs. Beckett: Opposition Members have spent a good deal of time talking about the importance of what they regard as the constitutional implications of the legislation, and then have called on me to curtail it, guillotine it, propose closure of the debate or not move the Ten o'clock motion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken most careful heed of all those injunctions, and I shall bear them very much in mind.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What we have just seen was

predicted three months ago—you, from the Chair, in conflict with someone who may refer to himself as an Assistant Speaker in the other Chamber. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) knows the rules, as we do. If we cannot get an Assistant Speaker from the other Chamber unconditionally to withdraw an allegation of deliberately misleading the House, what hope is there for the proper policing of our proceedings under the new arrangements?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I received an apology and when an apology is given, as far as the Chair is concerned, the matter is finished.

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have a point of order?

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is a very important question that I want to ask the Leader of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can wait until the Business statement tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
That the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Orders of the Day — CENSUS

Ordered,
That:—
(1) the draft Census Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 10th January, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation; and
(2) if, after the Committee has reported the Instrument to the House, the Motion in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to the draft Order is made, the Speaker shall put forthwith—

(i) the Questions on any amendments to the Motion which she has selected and which may then be moved, and
(ii) the Question on the Motion, or on the Motion as amended;

and such Questions may be decided at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Orders of the Day — Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has withdrawn.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eight o'clock.